Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 270125,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/270125/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 12,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "(a) whether he is aware that a contingent of Administration Police officers trespassed onto private property that is the subject of a court dispute, namely Narok/Ngurumani/Kamorora/1, in April 2010 and have remained there since despite protests by the registered owners; and, (b) whether he could order the immediate withdrawal of the police from the property. This Question was answered by the Assistant Minister of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security. Certain elements of the Question, however, remained outstanding and were deferred to be addressed at a later date. Hon.Members, on Tuesday, 17th May 2011, when the Question was revisited in respect of the outstanding issues, hon. K. Kilonzo rose on a point of order and stated that he had previously asked a Question touching on the same matters as the Question asked by the hon. Member for Gichugu. The hon. Member further stated that there existed three pending court cases relating to and whose subject was the same as the particular matters raised by the Member for Gichugu in Question No. 676. The Member for Mutito further stated that restraining court orders had been issued in the matter and that the matter was, therefore, sub judice. The hon. Member tabled seven documents in support of his claim for sub judice. Hon. Imanyara then rose on a point of order seeking clarification as to whether it was possible for hon. K. Kilonzo to revisit a Question that had been fully answered and in respect of which the only outstanding matter was the tabling of certain documents. In response to the matters raised by hon. K. Kilonzo, hon. Karua stated that in her view, once a Question had been substantively answered, a point of order relating to sub-judice was overtaken by events and ought not to be raised. She further stated that Question No. 676 as asked acknowledged the fact that there were ongoing court cases but did not relate to the particular court cases. On these grounds, she urged that the Chair allow the answering of Question No.676 to conclusion. The Assistant Minister in the Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and State Security, on his part, stated that there, indeed, existed about seven court cases on the matter, all of which had a bearing on the issue of trespass. He further stated that he had previously answered the Question and that he was ready to report on the issues that were outstanding on the Question. Hon. Olago, who also stood on a point of order, sought directions from the Chair as to whether it was in order for a Member of the Back Bench to attempt to frustrate the answering of a Question that had been asked by a Member by raising a point of order which directly went against the Question asked. Hon. Members, having reflected on the contributions of Members on this matter, I isolated the following as the issues that require the directions of the Chair: 1. Whether or not a Member of the Back Bench can claim that a Question raised by a fellow Member of the Back Bench is sub judice ; 2. At what point should a claim of sub judice be made; and 3. Whether in the light of the documents laid on the Table by hon. K. Kilonzo, the subject matter of Question No. 676 is sub judice. Hon. Members, I will pause for a minute to allow those at the door to come in."
}