Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 245771,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/245771/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 27,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": ". It has been argued through representation to me, both by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, that a Commission of Inquiry is a judicial proceeding in accordance with Standing Order No.34. I have perused the Commissions of Inquiry Act, Cap.102 Laws of Kenya and particularly Section 13 thereof, which I wish to reproduce in full below. Section 13(1) states as follows:- \"An Inquiry shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding for the purposes of Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 of the Penal Code. No person giving evidence in the proceedings of an Inquiry shall be compelled to incriminate himself and every person shall in respect of evidence given by him in any such proceedings be entitled to all the privileges and immunities to which a witness giving evidence before the High Court is entitled in respect of evidence given by him before that court.\" The marginal note to Section 13 reads as follows:- \"Inquiries to the judicial proceedings for certain purposes.\" It is not all purposes. Below that is Cap.63, which is the Evidence Act. Chapter 11 deals with offences relating to administration of justice while Cap.18 deals with various crimes of defamation as set out in the Penal Code. It is, therefore, clear that Section 13 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act only deals with the proceedings of a Commission of Inquiry to be judicial proceedings only as it relates to specified sections of the Penal Code and nothing else. Apart from the provisions of Chapters 11 and 18, the other proceedings of a Commission of Inquiry are just that; an inquiry. It is therefore, my considered view that receiving an evaluation of evidence is not a judicial act but just an inquiry. The rule of sub judice as imposed on itself by Parliament does not apply in this particular situation. This is probably the most challenging decision that I have ever had to make. It touches on the principles of democratic governance and the ability of the citizens through Parliament, to scrutinise and bring the Executive to account. I am mindful of the concerns raised about Parliament encroaching on the Executive ground and the need to allow Parliament to perform its oversight role. I hope I have attempted to put these perplexing issues in their perspective. Hon. Members, this is the most challenging decision I have had to make as your Speaker. When I took the oath of office on 9th January, 2003, I swore to be your servant and submit myself 1596 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES June 27, 2006 to the will of this House. I am however, guided by practice, traditions, precedence and rulings made by my predecessors and colleagues in the Commonwealth. I also swore to protect and defend the Constitution of Kenya. I further undertook to enforce the Standing Orders as your rules of procedure without fear or favour. I therefore, order that the joint Committee proceeds expeditiously to finalise the inquiries on hand and submit its report to this House without any further delay."
}