Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 331606,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/331606/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 324,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "We are using the vetting process to remove judges without giving them an opportunity to face a proper tribunal as guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, I find it very difficult to reconcile with my conscience that what we are doing is the best thing for the country. As it is right now; where there are challenges against the Board, there are also challenges on whether the Judiciary or the High Court can be removed from reviewing the manner in which any organ functions. Are we, ourselves as Legislature trying now to influence the way the Board is managed or the way the Judiciary is functioning? Should it not really be allowed to run its course? We should conclude the matter and get into normal constitutional way of doing things rather than trying to maneuver around the difficulties that we encounter. Now these judges are being difficult to us; we wanted to remove them; okay let us take it back from here; let us take it there so that we can remove them. We will not be surprised when people say, “you are victimising us”. Maybe when we are amending this, we should then provide the criteria that the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Board should use when they are vetting these judges and magistrates because then somebody who goes before the Board will know what it is that he will have to answer. Otherwise, we are using the Constitution and legal process to actually victimise people. I can assure you those judges and magistrates who are out there will never agree that this was a Constitution which was good for them because it was only used to finish off their careers in a manner which is not completely in line with the Constitution itself. So, I find it very difficult to lend my support to this Bill. I would have thought that may be it might be better to withdraw this Bill and we have a better reading of it, a better understanding of what it is we want to achieve; we need to be clearer in our vision rather than doing it because there are some difficulties somewhere, or some challenges, which cannot be sorted out. Parliament should not be used to do just--- It should be legislation which has meaning, is objective and has purpose, rather than where you feel you have some little difficulties then you say you want to amend the law. That was the road which, under the previous Constitution, we took when we faced constitutional legal challenges or political challenges. We then wanted to use the Constitution and Parliament to navigate round those challenges. I think we should not take that route. We should be clear that Parliament should only enact legislation which has long term benefits. Otherwise, next week we will find another challenge and that will be brought again and we will say we were wrong about that one, and let us now do this other one. I will not categorically, at this point in time, support that proposal."
}