Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 494822,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/494822/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 41,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Sakaja",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13131,
        "legal_name": "Johnson Arthur Sakaja",
        "slug": "johnson-arthur-sakaja"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, hon. Speaker. It is very interesting to hear this discussion because Members have, maybe due to lack of a better word, castigated the member who has brought this Motion. This is because he is referring to a matter that is active. Hon. Speaker, if you look carefully at what the member is asking for in his Motion, and we respect the doctrine of separation of powers, the doctrine of separation of powers has been there for many years but in that doctrine, we have three arms of government which move in horizontal formation. None is superior to the other; which means that this arm of Government can discuss what the other arm of government does without necessarily going into the details of that operation. The Member wants us to discuss, and probably the issue is how it was worded, a matter of national importance of how ex parte injunctions are given without focusing on the specific case. Sub judice is defined in our Standing Orders. Sub judice is on a member and I will read Standing Order No. 89(2); “a matter shall be considered sub judice when it refers to active criminal or civil proceedings and the discussion of such matter is likely to prejudice its fair determination.” Hon. Kuria wants us to discuss the matter of the court, and there are many examples; giving ex parte injunctions that hamper the activities of other arms of Government. He does not want us to discuss the specific issue of this case which is before the Judiciary. He has mentioned it as an example of the many. Hon. Speaker, in the doctrine of separation of powers, if the National Assembly decides to act in an inferior manner that we cannot discuss the happenings in the Judiciary, we will not be doing right. This is because our Constitution says that this National Assembly can discuss any matter of national importance and I believe that is the reason why this Motion has been approved by your office. Hon. Speaker, I urge hon. Moses Kuria to reword his Motion such that he can bring it again. It is not too late. Such that the discussion is not about the injunction of the police but it is about how the Judiciary has been giving ex parte injunctions, because that is a matter that must be discussed. That is what sub judice is, and in refusing to have this Motion debated, it must be demonstrated how the discussion of this matter is going to affect its fair determination. So, let us be fair to the Member. Let us not just say that the Member joined Parliament only the other day. Everyone in this House is a Member in his own right. He has a right to raise this issue because it is a matter of national importance."
}