Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 512152,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/512152/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 209,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Kajuju",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 840,
        "legal_name": "Florence Kajuju",
        "slug": "florence-kajuju"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, hon. Deputy Speaker. I rise to oppose the Motion that was presented before this House this afternoon. It is apparent that this is a Motion that has been brought before this House today for debate not for purposes of achieving any particular benefit for the Members, but is meant to injure the reputation of the Speaker. The law of equity demands that: “He who seeks equity must do equity.” What we are saying in this House is this: If you are seeking that the Speaker of this House does equity then you must be prepared to do equity as well. It also says that: “He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.” Those are principles that we cannot sweep under the carpet. What we are asking is: Has the Mover of this Motion come to this House with clean hands? Are the contents of that Motion brought to this House with clean hands?” From what has been enumerated in this House, the answer would be in the negative. Those who have brought this Motion have not brought it with clean hands. Why do I say this? There are situations where the Speaker has been forced to employ desperate measures because of desperate times. It has been said in this House by the previous speakers that there are situations that have warranted the Speaker to behave in the manner that he did. The contents of this Motion are that what the Speaker said was contemptuous, malicious and unfounded allegations. In my thinking, that would only amount to defamation. If we are talking about defamation of any particular Member in this House, then we must ask ourselves: Did what the Speaker did amount to defamation? Defamation is when you injure, or harm, the reputation of an hon. Member. I will be the first one to say that the conduct of the Speaker and his utterances and directions in this House have not injured the reputation of any one Member. I am alive to the fact that whatever the Speaker and Members say in this House is privileged. All of us enjoy immunity, so that I cannot be sued for any utterance that I make in this House. However, that does not give us the permission, or the licence, to disrespect one another in this House. So, what we are asking ourselves is: For this Motion to be brought to this House, have the commissions and omissions of the Speaker amounted to defamation? The answer is no. Neither has it amounted to abuse of the respect, laws and powers that the Speaker is given. The leadership of this House went for a retreat in Mombasa. They agreed on a number of issues that were then brought to this House as Communication from the Chair. What I am asking myself, and for which I have not found an answer - maybe hon. Musimba will provide it to me - is: Do you shoot the messenger? Do you kill the messenger? What the Speaker has done in this House from the first day when he was sworn in is to deliver messages. These messages have come from the House Business Committee (HBC) and the House leadership. We have always interacted as leaders. So, the question is: When we put the Speaker on the chopping board, who are we killing? Are we killing the messenger? It cannot be allowed. That is why I ask: If this Motion is not out of malice, why has it been brought before this House? I would appreciate if this Motion was brought to this House, so that we can re-examine ourselves and ask ourselves: For the two years that we have been in 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."
}