Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 344795,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/344795/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 192,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "matter, prevents a Minister from informing the House about the progress of police investigations in any instance, and if information is sought, the identity of the person being investigated, even if these happened to be Members of Parliament. Because of the well settled principle that a person including a suspect is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, such a report to the House by a Minister does not amount to imputing improper motive on a Member. By the time of his demise, the late Minister had tabled an interim report of the investigations and promised a final and comprehensive report. Indeed, the late Minister did make it clear that the fact of investigations being undertaken against certain persons could not establish a presumption of guilt. He also stated categorically when tabling the interim report that up to that point no evidence had been brought nor found to link the honourable Member for Kilome or any other Member of this House with the offence of drug trafficking. From the foregoing perspective, I am not able to find that the interim report forwarded to the late Minister vide a letter from the Office of the Commissioner of Police Ref. No. Sec. Pol. 2/2/1/9/Vol.XXXIII(69) dated 4th February, 2011 and tabled by the late Minister on 17th February, 2011, is in any violation of the Standing Orders. On the second issue of the letter by the American Ambassador, the rules on admissibility of documents in this House are well settled. Once a document meets the requisite threshold, among them, that it is duly signed and dated, it is admitted by the Speaker. Admission of a document does not signify the veracity of any claim made in it. A document is not admitted because its contents have been found by the Speaker to be true or correct. It does not signify any view as to its contents by the Speaker or by the House. In fact, it may well be the case that a document is tabled to establish the falsehoods in it. The admission by the Speaker of a document to be tabled is only evidence that the Speaker is satisfied that there is an authentic document that has been uttered and that can be drawn to the attention of the House. As a result of the foregoing, once a document has been admitted and tabled the fact that the contents of the document are later found to be either correct or false does not affect its status as a tabled document in the records of the House and cannot, without more, lead to its being expunged from the records. What the House does with an admitted document is a matter for the House itself, using the mechanisms by which the House expresses itself and makes its decisions. If on the other hand it were to be found that the document was a forgery, different considerations would, of course, apply because then there would really be no document before the House in the first place and the Speaker would merely be declaring as much. Arising from these circumstances, I now find and rule as follows:- One, that no case has been made to warrant the expunging of the document requested by the Member for Kilome from the records of the House. As a matter of fact, no purpose would be served by the Speaker pronouncing himself, at all, on the document complained of, as the manner in which it came before the House and its status in the House, has no adverse legal effect on the honourable Member or any other Member or any other person. The only thing that can be said of the document is that the House is seized of the fact that the document was uttered and that the House has custody of the document. No more, no less."
}