Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1299216,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1299216/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 37,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "duties of all guardians of the Constitution include the duty not to transgress the limitations of their own constitutionally circumscribed powers by trespassing into what is properly the domain of other constitutional organs” Hon. Senators, it is therefore clear that the courts, save for justifiable instances, should not interfere with an ongoing process before Parliament as clearly demonstrated by the aforementioned court decisions and rulings, which I fully agree with. In fact, this position was further demonstrated by the hon. judge in Petition No. E283 of 2023, Nairobi filed by Sen. Orwoba where the judge declined to grant the Senator conservatory orders against the Senate Committee of Powers and Privileges. Aware that the Senate was discharging its constitutional mandate, the court refrained from interfering with the inquiry that was being undertaken by the Powers and Privileges Committee. On the issue as to whether under the doctrine of separation of powers, the court has the power to review, vary or set aside a decision on a matter determined conclusively by Parliament, again, this issue is not new. It has arisen before and has been addressed by Speakers of Parliament and the courts themselves. In the ruling by hon. Sen. (Prof.) Kindiki that I have referred to herein before, while addressing himself to the doctrine of separation of powers, the hon. Deputy Speaker stated as follows: “In the spirit of the concept of checks and balances, which in itself is an offshoot of the separation of powers doctrine, our constitutional design ensures that the Judiciary is empowered to scrutinize legislation and other outputs of Parliament ipsofacto to ensure that the Constitution and the law have been complied with. Thus, the unfettered, but solemn privilege of Parliament to proceed unhindered by the Judiciary and the Executive is moderated by the reality that the Executive can veto legislation and courts of law in the exercise of their judicial authority under the Constitution retain a residual power to declare in justifiable instances, any legislation or other output of Parliament illegal, unlawful or unconstitutional.” In this ruling, the former Deputy Speaker appreciated the fact that the Judiciary may, in justifiable instances, review, set aside or vary a final determination of Parliament. In the matter of the Speaker of the Senate and Another – vs- the Attorney General and four others, Reference No. 2 of 2013 already referred to herein above, the Supreme Court stated that- “Parliament must operate under the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. If Parliament violates the procedural requirements of the supreme law of the land, it is for the courts of law, not least the Supreme Court, to assert the authority and supremacy of the Constitution. It would be different if the procedure in question was not constitutionally mandated. This court would be averse to questioning parliamentary procedures that are formulated by the Houses to regulate their internal workings as long as the same does not breach the Constitution. By rendering this opinion, the court does not violate the doctrine of separation of powers. It is simply performing its solemn duty under the Constitution and the Supreme Court Act.” The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard Services,Senate."
}