Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1014139,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1014139/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 30,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "to refrain from making Parliament act in vain because that is not what the membership of the House was elected to do, certainly not to act in vain.’’ Having said that Hon. Members, the information before me indicates that there are about eight active cases pending in various courts between the TSC and the KNUT part of which relate to the matters that the Departmental Committee on Education and Research was being invited to consider. As such, any intention by the Committee of this House to delve into these matters is likely to offend Standing Order 89. Whereas the two entities; TSC and KNUT fall within the mandate of the Committee on oversight, it is only prudent that parties decide on the path they want to follow to settle their disputes. As of now, it does appear to me that they have chosen the court route. As a House, it is only fair that we allow them to exhaust that option which they have chosen on their own without inviting the House or its organs to be part of the dispute resolution process or to attempt to mediate, unless the parties formally opt out of the court process in favour of a parliamentary process. For abundance of caution, it is prudent that given that the matters are also active in court, it is proper that the Committee and indeed the House deals with the matter after litigation has been settled so that the House will not trespass into the judicial province. However, it is noted that the principle of sub-judice cannot stand on the way of consideration of a matter vital to the public interest. Whereas under Article 95(2) and 5(b) of the Constitution the National Assembly is given the role to deliberate on and resolve issues of concern to the people and express oversight mandate over State organs, that mandate ought to be exercised outside the law, the Standing Orders and established precedent. However, in the present case, I issue a precaution that it is not in the public interest that the Committee releases its long standing suits between the TSC and KNUT until the matters therein are concluded by the courts of law. After all, there are various formal dispute resolution mechanisms recognised in law and these ones outside committees is not any one of them. Hon. Members, in conclusion, having examined the three issues as identified, my considered guidance is as follows: (i) That the Hon. Members who represent special interests should always declare their interest on any matter when considering the said interest in the House or in committees, in accordance with the requirements of Standing Order No. 90. (ii) That the recommendations of a committee of this House are not to be implemented prior to being considered and adopted by the House, unless the law of the Standing Order provides otherwise. However, at that stage, parties are at liberty to take counsel of the views of the Committee and the views largely represent the views of the people’s representatives. (iii) That the Departmental Committee on Education and Research does refrain from revisiting the current disputes between the TSC and the KNUT in accordance with the requirement of Standing Order No. 89 noting that the disputes are subject of active court cases unless the parties involved formally opt out of the court processes in favour of a parliamentary process. The House and the Committee are accordingly guided. Thank you."
}