Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1483330,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1483330/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 92,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "The Speaker (",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "representatives of the people and thus, Parliament cannot be prevented from giving a voice to the will of the people of Kenya. There are checks and balances within the separation of powers such that while Parliament should fulfil its responsibilities unabated, the courts will have their say in the exercise of judicial authority to declare any legislation or other output of Parliament illegal, unlawful or unconstitutional; and (c) Thirdly, attempts to injunct Parliament are inimical to the desired levels of institutional comity and cordial relations among other branches of government. Intergovernmental relations survive on inter-institutional respect and deference in a mutual manner, on the basis of reciprocity. Parliament ought to respect the Judiciary and the opposite is also true.” Hon. Senators, ladies and gentlemen, the Supreme Court in Petition No.32 of 2014; Justus Kariuki Mate & Another vs Martin Nyaga Wambora & Another [2017] also had an occasion to consider the competing constitutional imperatives under Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution, in what would be described in legal parlance as the locus classicus on this issue. In this matter, the Senate had resolved to remove the then governor of Embu County, Martin Wambora from office, by impeachment. Additionally, the High Court had issued conservatory orders, the effect of which were to prevent the impeachment of the governor. Following his impeachment, the governor challenged the impeachment by an application before the High Court and sought interim orders for his reinstatement into office and an order of contempt of court against the appellants (the Speaker and Clerk of the County Assembly of Embu) for allowing an impeachment Motion to be discussed and passed while conservatory orders were in place. The governor was successful in his application, the Court held that all proceedings conducted in disobedience of the court orders were null and void and found the appellants guilty of contempt. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellants filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal challenging the findings of the High Court. The Court of Appeal affirmed the findings of the High Court, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants urged that the trial court ought to have noted the legitimate dilemma facing the Speaker of the County Assembly, who was subject to constitutional timelines, yet was faced with a court order stopping the process. It was argued that in this case that the Speaker had complied with the Constitution in a context in which the question of constitutional obligation, on the one hand, and the burden of knowledge of the court order, on the other, were at stake, and asked the court to clarify to what extent parties would be in violation of legal requirements if court orders that conflicted with constitutional deadlines were binding on them. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court made reference to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Mumo Matemu vs Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & Two others, Civil Appeal No.290 of 2012 where the Court of Appeal adopted the High Court’s position on the doctrine of separation of powers, to the effect that- [Separation of powers] must mean that the courts must show deference to the independence of the Legislature as an important institution in the maintenance of our 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 and AudioServices, Senate."
}