Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 460587,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/460587/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 407,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Chepkonga",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1154,
        "legal_name": "Samuel Kiprono Chepkonga",
        "slug": "samuel-kiprono-chepkonga"
    },
    "content": "In your ruling, you stated that all State and public officers invited or summoned to appear or attend Committee hearings must do so without fail. That is the direction that you gave and it is binding on all the Committees of the House. Finally, you said that this order is meant to stop the whimsical and the discourtious correspondence from State and public officers who purport to want to reschedule Committee hearings when invited or summoned to appear before Committees. In your last paragraph, you clearly stated that:- “When summoning witnesses or persons who are expected to produce documents, at least, seven days’ notice for such a meeting for them to attend must be given”. There are so many goings-on that have happened in the recent past. There are court proceedings that have been taken out with the express intention of stopping the Committee from presenting its report to this House. There has also been a purported order that was issued today that this House does not discuss this report. In your ruling of 29th October, 2013, in which you were dealing with the scope of oversight powers of select committees, reference to substances of proceedings and comity between Legislature and Judiciary you quoted the former Speaker of the National Assembly, Speaker, Humphrey Slade and observed the following:- “Parliamentarians are eyes and the ears of the citizen. He also noted that, an investigation by Parliament attempts to answer the immediate and urgent questions and provides a platform for ventilation of preliminary matters. He concluded that this role of Parliament is so central to parliamentary democracy that it is impossible to imagine its removal or abridgement in any way or form”. He concluded:- “the power to scrutinise executive actions or omissions and to bring the Executive to account is the inalienable right of this House. It cannot be taken away in any form or guise, whether through a Commission or otherwise”. Hon. Speaker, Sir, in the conclusion of the directive that you gave to this House in the ruling, you said that notwithstanding anything to the contrary and quoting a court’s precedent in the United Kingdom, you stated as follows:- “The court held that a statute cannot be challenged on the grounds that it was illegally made or made for unlawful purpose, or made unlawfully. The court also held that if this were possible, it would then amount to denial of supremacy of Parliament. On the same subject, on Section 15 of the Mason’s Legislative Manual, provides as follows; and I quote “A legislative body having the right to do an Act in law must be allowed to select the means of accomplishing such act within reasonable bounds. Under a constitutional provision declaring that each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings, the fact that a House acted in violation of its rules, or violation of parliamentary law, is a matter clearly within its power and does not make its action subject to review by courts”. Finally, this is what you said:- “In this regard, it is urged that should a court clothe itself with the powers of the legislature and purport to make determination on matters relating to procedures of a House or the House of Parliament, and therefore question the supremacy of Parliament, 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."
}