Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 417632,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/417632/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 214,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Eng.) Gumbo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 24,
        "legal_name": "Nicholas Gumbo",
        "slug": "nicholas-gumbo"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Speaker, from the outset, I want to thank you. I want to declare very loudly that I belong to a party which believes, wholeheartedly, in devolution. I belong to a coalition which believes, wholeheartedly, in devolution and will defend, to the death, the principles of devolution. Hon. Speaker, the purpose of devolution is not to create 47 mini-presidents and demi-gods. I also think that when we debate in this House as Members, let us not try to look like we can mislead people and get away with it. One of us said that the Public Finance Management Act only allows the summoning of financial officers at the counties. I think it is not right to go that way. The provisions of Article 125 are very clear; that, Parliament and any of its committees has the power to summon any person to appear before it, for the purpose of giving evidence or providing information. I think it is wrong to equate the summons that may be issued to governors to matters of finance. Why would they not be questioned on matters of engineering? Why would they not be questioned on matters of law or procurement? I think we will progress, as a country, if we embrace the principles of constitutionality and the rule of law. But hon. Speaker, I am afraid that if we continue this way, we are headed for a serious constitutional lockdown. That is because we are all aware that, other than the President and his Deputy, the only people; the only arm of Government where representatives take their positions on account of the popular will of the people is this Assembly and the Senate. I think it is in that respect that in so many jurisdictions, the Legislature is called the “supreme organ”. It is not in vain. Hon. Speaker, the work of Parliament, as we know it today, is in serious jeopardy. I do not want to go through what other people have talked about. I think we have reached a point where we must ask: When do the principles of supremacy, complementarity or subordination apply? The same way, we cannot question matters before the courts, it will be sub judice to discuss a matter before a court. Whey then is it in order that the courts can interfere with a matter before this House? These are questions that we must ask. Hon. Speaker, you have given very many scenarios, but I am looking at a situation where we are headed into problems. We are given powers under the law to discuss the conduct of members of the Judiciary upon moving a Substantive Motion. Hon. Speaker, the other day you said: “Justice is as long as the judge’s foot”. Suppose this Parliament legitimately felt that it needed to discuss the conduct of a member of the Judiciary and a judge issues an injunction to this House say, for six years? Why would we then be legislating in vain? So, as you engage with the other arms of the Government, I think it needs to come out very clearly. Under what circumstances can this House be issued with an injunction by the Judiciary? We are, in fact, going to reach a point where we cannot even do our work. You have given scenarios. We have the Supplementary Budget coming before this House. We know how people have got flimsy excuses. Anybody can run to court and say he is seeking orders to direct all manner of directions! The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}