Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 241647,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/241647/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 260,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. M. Kilonzo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 47,
        "legal_name": "Mutula Kilonzo",
        "slug": "mutula-kilonzo"
    },
    "content": "Therefore, when the Attorney-General comes here and tells us that when a Kenyan citizen makes an application for stay of proceedings involving corruption, that stay will never be given, he is violating Section 72 of the Constitution which clearly requires that a person in Kenya should be entitled to a fair hearing. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the only method of obtaining a fair hearing is through a stay of the proceedings, who are we to say otherwise? Not unless we amend the Constitution to say that an application for stay should not be allowed. I know he just wants to take a short cut and we should not allow it. We should continue to respect Section 72 in order to give discretion to magistrate, so that if the magistrate or judge is satisfied that a reason for stay is there, then the order is granted. Moreover, the Chief Justice, in a way I cannot even understand, came and found the Chunga rules inadequate and amended them. The Chunga rules had provided that the moment a citizen of this country invokes the Constitution with regard to a pending case, the case in the magistrate's court be stayed. The Chief Justice, as recently as two months or so ago, amended those rules to say: \"No, no! The two cases will go on simultaneously.\" This only happens in Kenya because nobody cares about constitutional provisions for fair hearing. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, once you invoke the Constitution before court, that question is superior to any question before the magistrate. To give a simple example, supposing a person in Kenya were to accuse a girl, under the Sexual Offences Act, that she has committed rape and then she goes to the Chief Justice and says: \"Your honour, I am unable to commit rape because of the state of my physical features. Therefore, I want you to determine the constitutionality of the charge before the presiding magistrate.\" Obviously, the Chief Justice must order that the question of the sex of this woman and her ability to commit rape be determined first. The Constitution is superior to an order before a magistrate's court. Therefore, the time to educate the Judiciary is now. Stop playing politics. If you want to fight corruption--- 2278 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES July 20, 2006"
}