Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1493637,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1493637/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 74,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "South Mugirango, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Silvanus Osoro",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "decisions in that case. We found a positivist on the bench - and I think it was Justice King. We also found a clear naturalist and one we even never wanted to touch. This question of public participation has brought a lot of confusion within our courts. There are differences in views of the judges. One judge's view in Kajiado High Court differs from the one in Kisii, Kerugoya, Mombasa, and another one in South Mugirango — and very soon we will get to a High Court. We are lucky to have a magistrate's court at the moment. When you read such judgment, you will then be left wondering which particular judgment to refer to when you are creating your jurisprudence in terms of making public participation worthwhile. That is why the Supreme Court needed to come up with a clear distinction on what this House ought to do in terms of public participation. What we are suffering from is what I would call judicial activism, and I say this with tremendous respect to members of the Judiciary, where some members of the Judiciary decided to be activists and start making populist decisions. In fact, you would even be forgiven if you actually predict the outcome and then it comes exactly as it is. You would even have seen conversations on social media on how a judge would interpret this public participation direction and the following day, when you read that judgment, it turns out exactly as it was written by some people on social media. That is mere judicial activism! The direction the Supreme Court has actually given us, as far as public participation is concerned, the right jurisprudence. But, again, I challenge this House to expedite the process of creating this law on public participation and create parameters; in as much as now we are using the jurisprudence that has been created. It is important for this House to expedite such laws and the Chairman of the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is here and is well noting. We should expedite such a process so that we do not have similar confusions in future where the same procedure used on a particular Bill is rendered mute while a similar procedure that has been used on a different Bill has gone through a similar procedure and is passed and enacted into law. That kind of confusion could not be explained. We had lost quality on making our jurisprudence in courts and we really must commend the honourable judges for coming up with such very serious directions as far as this jurisprudence is concerned. Thank you very much."
}