Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 126441,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/126441/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 476,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The Chamber Summons attached to the documents presented by the hon. M. Kilonzo is blank in the space provided for indicating the date on which all parties concerned should attend for hearing of the matter. No Hearing Notice or other evidence is provided. As I have recently ruled, Standing Order No.80(4) imposes a duty on a member claiming that a matter is sub judice to provide the requisite evidence. It may well be the case that there is, indeed, such evidence. However, at this point in time, no such evidence has been presented to the Chair. On the question of the likelihood of prejudice to the fair determination of court proceedings, it is useful to note that the legal term “prejudice” finds expression in many areas of the law and may be described in a myriad ways. The concept is supposed to operate to prevent procedural and substantive injustices, not to create them. Allegations of prejudice must be scrutinized carefully. The specific allegations of likelihood of prejudice should be detailed with sufficient particularity to allow the Chair to make an informed decision on the merits of the allegation. It must be noted, Hon. Members, that court proceedings are presided upon by judicial officers properly trained in law and who have taken an oath to discharge the functions of their office without fear or favour and without extraneous influences being brought to bear on their work. In the ordinary course of affairs, judicial officers of any repute are very unlikely to be swayed by what is said in Parliament. It does not inspire confidence in the able and learned men and women who serve in our Judiciary if we allow the propagation of a view that the Judiciary are always looking over their shoulders at what Parliament has said or at the view that Parliament may take on a matter before making their determinations. It will, probably, itself be an affront on the principle of separation of powers if one arm of Government were to take such a view of another arm of Government. In my considered view, in a properly functioning democracy with a sound and professional Judiciary, the burden of the evidence required to show that there is a likelihood of prejudice to the fair determination of any matter by the courts should be set very high indeed. I do not see that this has been proved. Hon. Members, it is important to distinguish the capacity in which the Judiciary and the Legislature operate. This House, by virtue of the mandates bestowed on it by the Constitution, has powers of legislation, oversight and representation. These are the capacities in which the House functions. The Judiciary, on the other hand, neither legislates nor represents nor has oversight over other arms of Government. Its functions are adjudicatory. This distinction is important in understanding the different capacities in which the two organs of the Government operate. Hon. Members, it will be recalled that this House was first seized of the matter of the re-appointment of the Director of the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC) on Thursday, 3rd September, 2009 when the Mr. Isaac Ruto raised the issue in this House. At that time there was no known pending court case regarding the matter. I take the view that as a general proposition, this House, in line with precedents from other similar jurisdictions, should not abandon a matter over which it is seized on the ground only that"
}