Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 526846,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/526846/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 66,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "“As I have previously ruled, the sub judice rule is not one to be invoked lightly. A claim of likelihood of prejudice of the fair determination of a matter is similarly not to be invoked without circumspection. I have ruled before and reiterate that gagging this House and preventing it from discharging its constitutional mandate requires tangible reasons to be advanced.” Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is not enough for the distinguished Senator to place before you pleadings before a court. He has to demonstrate that debating the matter here will affect and influence the proceedings in the court and that, in fact, it will amount to casting aspersions against the judge; that the judge who is hearing the case is likely to be influenced by what distinguished Senators will say here. That Judge should be removed from the bench because he has no business being a Judge. Speaker Marende went on to say: “The danger of prejudice to the due administration of justice must be clearly shown.” The Senate Majority Leader has not shown any, he has not even attempted to show any. Speaker Sinden of the Australian House of Representatives held similar views when in 1976 – and this is what I referred to under Standing Order No.1 as comparable jurisdiction and precedence from other jurisdictions – said the following which is quoted here:- “There is a long line of authority from the courts which indicates that the courts and judges of the courts do not regard themselves as such delicate flowers that they are likely to be prejudiced in their decisions by a debate that goes on in the House” Mr. Speaker, Sir, even if it had been shown – which it was not – which is the same case here, that the proceedings were active within the meaning of our rules, I am not prepared to find that in the present circumstances there was or there is a likelihood that the debate in this House would prejudice the fair determination of the matter. My objection to that point of order is on two limbs. One, it was like jumping the gun because there is no Motion before the House. Assuming that you rule that he was right in saying what he said, he has no limb to stand on to curtail debate on the basis of pleadings that he has placed before the House simply because a matter is before court. This is not a court of law. It is an arena and a theatre of political debate and legislation. That is a court of law that determines matters on facts and law and nothing else. Woe unto this country and our judiciary if any judge sitting out there would raise his hair and determine a matter because he heard the distinguished Senator for Tharaka-Nithi raise something about it on the Floor of the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Sir."
}