Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 490840,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/490840/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 269,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "The Senate Majority Leader",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 440,
        "legal_name": "Onesimus Kipchumba Murkomen",
        "slug": "kipchumba-murkomen"
    },
    "content": "(Sen. (Prof.) Kindiki): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I just want to thank you for the ruling you have just made. I want to highlight two things which you might have to reflect on. Until we see the end of this approach where the Judiciary thinks they can supervise Parliament like a parastatal, there would be need for both the Chair and our Legal Affairs Committee to think a little more around this issue. I want to say two things. First, the supposed reliance on Article 226 by Governors is oblivious of the fact that it talks about accounting officers. Governors are not accounting officers. So, Article 226 talks about summoning of accounting officers by county assemblies. Our summonses to governors are based on Article 125 that talks about summoning any person. If the intention was to exclude Governors, then Article 125 should have said that we can summon any person, except Governors. That clarity needs to be given. The county assemblies can call their accounting officers, but we can call any person under Article 125. The second and last point is that you have properly guided that, indeed, Parliament cannot be injuncted. That is my position. In fact, I am preparing an academic paper to be published internationally and demonstrate how erroneous this crippling jurisprudence is not only to the Kenyan legal system, but to the Commonwealth legal jurisprudence. Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is something for reflection, going forward. I have seen my seniors here; Sen. Wako, Sen. Wetangula, Sen. Kembi-Gitura and others. In my view, Parliament cannot be injuncted when it is performing its core business. Core business means oversight, legislation and representation. I say so, because in Parliament, there are many other things that happen of administrative nature which do not relate to our core mandate. For example, it is the work of the Parliamentary Service Commission to deal with human resource management, procurement and so on. So, you can issue out injunctions on those issues. However, you cannot issue out injunctions on the core business of Parliament. Similarly, the other arms of governments cannot interfere with the Judiciary in its core business which is hearing and determining cases. That is why I find it ironical when the Judiciary tries to make itself immune from any oversight, including the oversight of Parliament even in non-core issues like the work of the Judicial Service Commission. The magistrates and judges who sit in that commission are not exercising judicial functions. It is just an independent constitutional commission just like the Constitutional Implementation Commission (CIC) or the Teachers’ Service Commission (TSC) and others."
}