Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 120089,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/120089/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 22,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "(ii) The criteria for determining what amounts to an improper motive is subjective and calls for the evaluation of the circumstances of each case. Indeed, a mere statement that a Member has an ongoing court case does not amount to imputing improper motive as it is only a statement of fact. However, when an allegation that some Members of the Cabinet have ongoing court cases is followed by another allegation that those Members are, therefore, in office contrary to the provisions of the Public Officers Ethics Act, the two allegations read together amount to a direct affront on the conduct of those Members. It imputes a perception that the conduct of those Members is such that they should not be in office and are, therefore, insincerely in office. The precedents of this House are quite clear that an allegation of insincerity amounts to an imputation of an improper motive. On the 8th March, 1966, the then Speaker (Mr. Slade) observed as follows:- “It depends entirely on what is being alleged. If there is an allegation of perfectly reasonable motive, it is not out of order; a motive which anybody might have without being thought the worse of. But the moment there is a suggestion of insincerity, for instance, you are alleging improper motives and I will not have it. We were well on to that line of suggestion with what Mr. Oselu Nyalick said” One cannot, therefore, solely rely on the fact that a list of Members with ongoing court cases has previously been tabled before the House. The real issue is whether there was any imputing of improper motive at the time of that tabling. The Chair also takes cognisance of the presumption of innocence enshrined in Section 77(2) of the Constitution which requires that every person who is charged with a criminal offence be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty or has pleaded guilty."
}