HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 526858,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/526858/?format=api",
"text_counter": 78,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Orengo",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 129,
"legal_name": "Aggrey James Orengo",
"slug": "james-orengo"
},
"content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, more importantly, it is the question of prejudice. That has not been dealt with and it is too late now to deal with it because the Senator making the allegation should have addressed that issue of prejudice. This is because the burden is on him and not on the House. On the same decision that was made by Speaker Marende on the 10th September, 2009, he had this to say, and this was not the part that was read by the Senate Minority Leader. It says:- “On the question of the likelihood of prejudice to the fair determination of court proceedings, it is useful to note that the legal term “prejudice” is not just any term. It is a term of art, finds expression in many areas of the law and may be described in a myriad ways. The concept is supposed to operate to prevent procedural and substantive injustices, not to create them.” Mr. Speaker, Sir, allegations of prejudice must be scrutinized carefully. There has been no allegation at all of prejudice. There is nothing to scrutinize. The specific allegations of likelihood of prejudice should be detailed with sufficient particularity to allow the Chair to make an informed decision on the merit of the allegation. Mr. Speaker, Sir, what then are you required to do when no evidence has been placed on that very important consideration which is required by the Standing Orders? That concrete evidence on the issue of prejudice must be provided. However, that has not been provided. It is too late now to try and provide it because the Senator who was making that allegation has had his bit and on that account alone, this matter fails. The other thing that this House must remember, for example, if today the President, in his exercise of his powers and authority, wanted to declare war and he needed the permission of Parliament, and in the intervening period somebody went to court, and the country is under attack, would you stop this Parliament from giving authority to the President to declare war simply because that the matter was sub judice ? This is, probably, the reason Mr. Speaker said that we should address each other with decorum and I do not want to cast aspersions. However, I am beginning to believe that the Senate, in order to make sure that its authority is not undermined and similarly not to undermine the authority of the Judiciary, that on matters which come before us, we should be able to create a balance where we can discuss matters before us, without causing prejudice in this case which has not been alleged. I must say in conclusion that the rule of sub judice is not a constitutional rule. It is not in any law other than the Standing Orders. Standing Orders are rules. Therefore, they cannot overcome the Constitution and the statutory laws as passed and enacted by Parliament. To that effect, because of the significance of this issue that is being raised, Parliament must also be heard if the Fourth Estate is talking on this matter and informing Kenyans what their opinion is, even the National Assembly has taken a position on this matter - this mongrel which you are interpreting in a negative way - then I am sure that this Senate will be confined to oblivion. This is because you will always find a reason for not deciding or debating anything. 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"
}