Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 339441,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/339441/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 13,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, going back to where I was, Standing Order No. 80 contains the rules on how this House determines whether a matter is sub judice or not because paragraph (1) of the said Standing Order in particular prohibits reference to any matter which is sub judice . Under paragraph (2) of the said Standing Order, a matter is considered to be sub judice when it refers to active criminal or civil proceedings and the discussion of such matter is likely to prejudice its fair determination. Is the current matter active within the meaning of Standing Order 80 (2)? Under paragraph 3 (c) of Standing Order 80, civil proceedings are considered to be active when arrangements for hearing, such as setting down the case for trial have been made, until the proceedings are ended by judgment or discontinuance. The daily Cause List of the High Court indicates that High Court Petition No 528 of 2012 has been listed for hearing commencing on 10th December, 2012 before Justice Majanja. The matter having been listed for hearing as stated above is therefore active within the contemplation of Standing Order 80(3) and any pronouncement on the matter by Mr. Speaker may prejudice its fair determination by the Court. I also note that the HANSARD proceedings of the House on Wednesday, 21st November, 2012 are part of the record of pleadings filed in Court. This is indeed a testament of how the proceedings of this House may very well prejudice fair determination of the matter in court. Hon. Members, as I have stated in my previous Communications relating to matters in Court, in the Commonwealth tradition, the s ub judice rule arose out of a desire by Parliament to exercise restraint such that its comments and debate do not influence Courts to the detriment of litigating parties and witnesses in court proceedings. The doctrine is additionally premised on the Constitutional principle of separation of powers by which Parliament should not be seen as trying to deal with issues that properly belong to the Judiciary. This is not to say Parliament cannot express itself on a matter in Court - far from it. Indeed, in my ruling made on 10th September, 2009 on the matter relating to the appointment of the Director and two Assistant Directors of the then Kenya Anti- Corruption Commission which was being jointly considered by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and on Delegated Legislation, I stated: “It must be noted that court proceedings are presided upon by judicial officers properly trained in law and who have taken an oath to discharge the functions of their office without fear or favour and without extraneous influences being brought to bear on their work.” In the same ruling, I made the following observation:"
}