Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1014138,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1014138/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 29,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Permit me, Hon. Members, to refer to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Practice as codified in the 23rd Edition of Erskine May on page 142, which states thus: ‘‘The publication or disclosure of debates or proceedings of a committee conducted with closed doors or in private or when the publication is expressly forbidden by the House or of a draft report of committees, before they have been reported to the House, will constitute a breach of privilege or contempt.” Hon. Members, the information quoted in the letter of KNUT to the TSC, constituted deliberations of the Departmental Committee on Education and Research, which are yet to be brought to the House in form of a report. While it is obvious that the KNUT and the TSC are free to exchange any correspondences between them, it is extremely out of order for KNUT, or indeed any other person to quote deliberations or proposals made in the Departmental Committee on Education and Research and use them as an authority in a bid to compel action from a third party. In any case Hon. Members, even if the proposed recommendations had already been adopted by the House, the onus of communicating them to both the TSC and KNUT would have rested on the Clerk of the National Assembly and not on KNUT which is itself a party to the proceedings. I, therefore, admonish the strange and the unprocedural manner in which KNUT appear to have behaved in this matter by not only purporting to use premature parliamentary information to its benefit, but also taking up the role of the Clerk of the National Assembly as the official conveyor of the decisions or resolutions of the House or its committees. On the third issue of whether the Committee of the House ought to deal with matters that are active in court, which now introduces the issue of sub-judice, as indeed raised by the TSC, as you are aware, Standing Order No. 89 prohibits deliberation of matters that are active in a court of law. However, prohibition of discussion on active court matters is limited to the extent where such discussion is likely to prejudice the fair determination of the matters at hand. This is primarily the reason why Standing Order 89(5) grants the Hon. Speaker of the National Assembly power to allow reference to any matter before the House or a Committee, even if it is active in court. Hon. Members, just to reiterate, I previously addressed this matter on several occasions both in 11th and the current Parliament. You may, for instance, recall the ruling that I delivered on 29th October 2013, upon request by the Member for Ugenya, the Hon. David Ochieng’. In that ruling I did state as follows: ‘‘A recommendation of a committee is not final until the report is considered by the House and a decision made in one way or the other. However, should the House adopt a report of a committee purporting to invalidate or nullify a matter determined by a court exercising its judicial powers, then it becomes very difficult for anyone to implement such a resolution. This is because our Parliament does not have appellate jurisdiction or judicial processes. As a matter of fact, the practice of parliamentary appellate jurisdictions was primarily practised in the United Kingdom Parliament, where the House of Lords also acted as a court of appeal. However, again this practice ended on 1st October 2009, when the appellate jurisdiction was transferred to the Supreme Court. In this regard, it will probably be more useful for Parliament to require that the aggrieved party makes an appeal before a higher court. It has been urged that if Parliament makes a resolution that is not implementable or one that purports to unduly reverse a court process or decision, then such resolution would be in vain. I am on record asking committees The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}