Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 245769,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/245769/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 25,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "That, therefore, settles the first two issues in the negative. The third issue relates to whether or not the Committees are conducting a parallel inquiry, thereby violating the Commissions of Inquiry Act, Cap 102 of the Laws of Kenya. As stated earlier on, the Departmental Committee on the Administration of Justice and Legal Affairs was already seized of this matter from as early as 7th March, 2006. The Committee has received evidence that was still alive and that differs with the time the Commission of Inquiry was formed. It was in situ long before the Commission of Inquiry was established. The fundamental question is: \"Is the Commission of Inquiry superior to Parliament to take precedence and stop Parliament in its tracks?\" Parliament is a creature of the Constitution and the Commission June 27, 2006 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 1595 is a creature of the Executive through an Act of Parliament. If the Commission of Inquiry was formed before the relevant Departmental Committees were seized of the matter to be inquired into, then good sense would have dictated that Parliament may have to await the findings of the Commission of Inquiry. The same good sense would also have dictated that the setting up of a commission of inquiry would have to await the report of the parliamentary inquiry. However, this is just good sense. I do not think that the setting of parliamentary inquiry would by that very fact stop an already on-going Commission of Inquiry and vice versa. Each has a different reporting authority. This situation is clumsy but I see nothing legally wrong with it. Yes, it is clumsy but legally, it is not wrong. Each in theory, at least, is trying to establish the truth to the appointing authority. The result may, indeed, be fascinating. I must state here that neither the Commission of Inquiry nor the Parliamentary Committees' inquiry can stop the Executive from conducting a parallel investigation to establish whether or not, any crimes have been committed by any person(s) and charge them in a court of competent jurisdiction. If such an event were to occur, that is, if the Executive were to arrest and charge any persons or person in court on a matter that is being inquired by the House Committees or the Commission of Inquiry, it is my view that any such further Inquiry either by a Commission or Parliament, will cease forthwith until that case has been conclusively determined. This is what I understand to be the sub judice rule. This now brings me to the final question of the issue before the Commission being sub"
}