HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 490786,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/490786/?format=api",
"text_counter": 215,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "what to do. Many of the decisions included capturing judges and taking them before the Star Chamber to interrogate and grill. In one incident, they even meted out some extreme violence on the judge in form of physical punishment. We do not want to take that direction. I do not think we need a Star Chamber in Kenya. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Judiciary is a very important organ in any functioning democracy. Its importance is under-pinned by a state where nobody disrespects the decisions of the Judiciary. Those who are aggrieved simply move to the upper chamber for appeal. I keep on giving an example of the Electorate Commission of India which recently conducted an election with over 750 million people voting. After the elections which took one full month, nobody raised a finger. Nobody raised a finger on the conduct and integrity of the India Electoral Commission. This is a public institution that must, as of necessity, constantly feel the nerve and direction of society. Otherwise, if an institution becomes an impediment to progressive growth of society, you soon will have a Star Chamber. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think some of our judicial officers have not conducted themselves well. The basic tenets of law on injunctions, even a first year law student knows, you cannot grant an injunction unless damages are an inadequate compensation; the party is going to suffer irreparable damage and so on, and so forth. Those who are lawyers can remember the case of Giella versus Casman Brown that laid the fundamentals on when and how an injunction should be issued and should operate. Mr. Speaker, Sir, in such weighty matters as injuncting an institution as critical as a Senate of Parliament, common sense and judicial sense requires that no such orders should be given ex parte . This is because you go for an ex parte injunction when there is imminent danger that your house is about to be auctioned, it is a Friday and you must stop it so that the court can hear you on Monday after serving the other party. If not, you will suffer irreparable damage. Mr. Speaker, Sir, when a Member of a devolved unit, like a Governor, has been asked to come to the Senate and account for public money placed in his control, what irreparable damage can he possibly suffer by appearing before a Senate Committee? None whatsoever! The moment you step into a public office, you subject yourself to a higher calling where you must be called upon to account. Even if the call on you to account is malicious, you still have a duty to account because the funds placed in your hands are not your own. Mr. Speaker, Sir, for a long time, even if you look at Erskine May, and go through the long established democracies such as the United Kingdom (UK), France and others – although France has had breaks here and there with people like Napoleon coming to disrupt democracy, there is no single juridical decision that you can find where courts injunct Parliament from performing their work. The most bizarre is when I saw a suit filed before the High Court suing each and every individual Senator, including you, the Speaker and the institution of the Senate for passing a law. I have never envisaged a situation where any court, whether contested or not, can entertain such a misguided suit. The High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction, including striking out a legislation passed by any House as being unconstitutional. But the High Court has no jurisdiction to The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}