Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 339442,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/339442/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 14,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "3 Thursday, 13th December, 2012(P) “I take the view that as a general proposition, this House, in line with the precedents from other similar jurisdictions, should not abandon a matter over which it is seized on the ground only that the matter has become the subject of litigation in a court of law. Indeed as my learned predecessor, Speaker Kaparo, had occasion to say on 13th April 1995: “The effectiveness of the National Assembly will be seriously undermined if Members should pre-empt debate on matters before the House by resorting to court.” Hon. Members, if this House, as happened in the present case, begins to consider any matter before it is the subject of litigation, the House will not give up jurisdiction of the matter easily or at all, for the reason only that some litigation has subsequently commenced on the matter. To hold otherwise would be to invite every person who is apprehensive of the action that this House might take on any matter to rush to court and thereby gag the House from further deliberation on the matter. This surely cannot have been the intention of the sub judice rule. The Chair will guard carefully against the abuse of the procedures of this House in that manner.” Whereas I cannot hesitate to deliver a ruling on a matter of great public interest that has been raised in the House, two issues constrained me from making any ruling on the matter raised by Hon. Midiwo. One, the fact that the issues raised by the Member on 21st November 2012 are exactly the same issues which are pending for determination before the High Court under High Court Petition No. 538 of 2012. Hon. Jakoyo Midiwo, after raising the matter in the House, went to court to seek determination and, in particular, sought constitutional interpretation of the matter. The High Court under Article 165 (3) paragraph (b) of the Constitution has jurisdiction to hear any question respecting the interpretation of the Constitution, and specifically the question whether anything said to be done under the authority of the Constitution is inconsistent with, or in contravention of, the Constitution. The hon. Member for Gem has, after raising this matter in the House, proceeded to seek the interpretation of the High Court under Article 165(3) paragraph (b) of the Constitution."
}