Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 300407,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/300407/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 542,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Prof. Muigai",
    "speaker_title": "The Attorney-General",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 408,
        "legal_name": "Githu Muigai",
        "slug": "githu-muigai"
    },
    "content": " Madam Temporary Deputy Chairlady, I beg to move:- THAT, the provisions relating to the Elections Act, 2011, on Clause 22(2), be deleted from the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill as recommended by His Excellency the President. The reasons are the same as I had already intimated to the House. Save, I would like to make this clarification: It has not been suggested by the President that each time there is a court case, Parliament cannot move with legislative business. There are four situations in which we need to ask the relevance of court proceedings. Madam Temporary Deputy Chairlady, number one, if court proceedings are contemplated in a matter that the House has jurisdiction of, that is to say notice to file a suit has been given but no suit has been filed, this House can make any amendment that it wishes. That is not the case here. Number two, where the matter is before court but the court has not become seized of the hearing, that is to say the matter is not before a judge. A judge has not heard arguments. A judge has not given interim orders. In the cases His Excellency the President has cited, the court is already seized of the matter. In some cases, I know the case relating to the hon. Ephrain Maina and hon. Mbuvi, these hon. Members actually have court orders in their favour and the President’s view is that it would be wrong to interfere with a controversy that is alive before the court. Madam Temporary Deputy Chairlady, the final situation is where the court determines a case in whatever way it desires. This Parliament can come back and say: “The court said X but Parliament believes Y and, therefore, that provision that the court interpreted, Parliament has amended it.” So, once we are clear about that, our jurisdiction and sovereignty to make law has not been compromised in any way whatsoever. I wanted to make that clarification. Thank you."
}