HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1354960,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1354960/?format=api",
"text_counter": 94,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
"speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) Otiende Amollo",
"speaker": null,
"content": "It is clear that the quoted case E389/2023 is active, has been set down, and has not been ended by discontinuance or judgment. It falls under the provisions of Standing Order 89. All the quoted Articles of the Constitution are true. However, despite those provisions, in our wisdom as a House, we established the Standing Orders and included Standing Order 89. If it were possible for us to willingly discuss certain matters despite them being sub-judice, it would have been easy for us to include that provision in the Standing Orders. It is not true that the orders read only stop the deployment of the police. To the extent that any court order stops the deployment of the police, it stops all processes that lead to that decision. One of those processes is bringing a Motion to the National Assembly, which will either approve or reject the deployment. That automatically means that all those processes must be held in abeyance. Is it true, as Hon. Osoro says, that we are not a party to the proceedings? Yes, we may or may not be. However, whenever we learn of any matter that concerns us, and we want to nip it in the bud or fast-track it, we usually join the proceedings. Our not being part of the proceedings is neither here nor there. Such court orders are binding on everyone, whether you are part of the proceedings or not. Hon. Osoro knows that because he is a lawyer. The principle that it can sometimes be convenient to follow court orders, while at other times it is inconvenient, is what makes us a laughing stock. The Leader of the Minority Party recently sought to replace the Deputy Chief Whip of the Azimio Coalition. Someone else, other than the concerned Member went to court. We were not party to the court proceedings just like in this case. When the court stopped the process, the Speaker held that decision in abeyance for months until that matter was finally disposed of. How is that matter different from this one? How do students and Kenyans looking at us understand Parliament? We become a laughing stock when we apply different standards. It is unfortunate that we think that we can sometimes conveniently ignore court orders, and sometimes we cannot. In fact, the Speaker of the National Assembly is a party to case E389/2023, which has been tabled before you. Whether the Speaker chooses to appear or not is a different matter. It does mean that the orders were not seen. Lastly, the Leader of the Majority Party says that we can only see what has been brought before us. Leader of the Majority Party, when you become a lawyer one day, as I am sure you will, you will learn that only justice is blind. Justice is said to be blind, but any determinative authority must always take notice of what is happening on the side. We talk about judicial notices in the Judiciary. If we learn that a national crisis has occurred, even on SMS, while we are transacting business in Parliament, we will take parliamentary notice of it. You cannot say that we cannot take parliamentary notice of what is in public notoriety, yet we are aware of it. To avoid this selective amnesia that my brothers are suffering from, and to maintain the dignity of this House, this debate should be held in abeyance. Parliament should apply to be a party to the proceedings, if it wants to do so. Once the matter is determined, we can come back to debate it."
}