Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 279063,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/279063/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 25,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Parliament shield any person from criminal prosecution for corruption or extortion. As you are all aware, the respect accorded to this House and to its Members is predicated on our conducting ourselves with the highest standards of integrity, honor and decorum. If these are absent, we lose the moral ground to continue to be Members of this House and to represent the people. That said, may I also draw the attention of all hon. Members to the provisions of Standing Order No. 79(4) which provides as follows:- “No Member shall impute improper motive to any other Member except upon a specific substantive Motion of which at least three days’ notice has been given, calling in question the conduct of that Member.” This rule of debate is important if we are to conduct our proceedings in an orderly manner. The freedom of speech and debate in the House comes with a heavy responsibility both with respect to members of the public and among ourselves. If a Member becomes aware of wrongdoing by another Member, it is incumbent upon him to give notice of a substantive Motion under this Standing Order so that the alleged conduct of the Member is discussed and a resolution by the House is made. The House should not degenerate into an arena for name-calling and accusations and counter-accusations. Hon. Members, for the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to revisit and clarify the directions issued from the Chair last Thursday. In particular, I wish to draw the attention of Members to the roles and functions of the Committee of Privileges established under Section 10 of the National Assembly Powers and Privileges Act. Section 10(4) of that Act provides that the Committee which is chaired by the Speaker “shall either on its own motion or as a result of a complaint made by any person inquire into any alleged breach by any Member of the Assembly of the code of conduct issued under Section 9, or into any conduct of any Member of the Assembly within the precincts of the Assembly other than the Chamber - emphasis: Other than the Chamber - which is alleged to have been intended or likely to reflect adversely on the dignity or integrity of the Assembly or the Member thereof or to be contrary to the best interest of the Assembly or the Members thereof.” The Committee of Privileges, after such inquiry, reports its findings to the Assembly together with such recommendations as it deems appropriate and the House then considers the report and the recommendations thereon and may take such disciplinary action against the Member concerned as may be recommended by the House. The jurisdiction of the Committee of Privileges is, therefore, limited and does not extend to matters which arise on the Floor. The Committee cannot be used as a substitute for what essentially can only be disposed of by the House through a substantive Motion. Similarly, in matters that arise on the Floor of the House, determinations properly belong to the Speaker or the presiding officer. The Committee of Privileges will not be seized of such a matter. It should be clear from what I have stated that what transpired on the Floor last Thursday both in the manner in which accusations were made and rebutted was not in keeping with our rules. The Committee of Privileges may become seized of the matter, but this will need to happen in accordance with Section 10 of the National Assembly Powers and Privileges Act. Any evidence that is in the possession of any person, whether a Member of this House or otherwise will need to be presented to the Committee."
}