Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 526867,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/526867/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 87,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "of resolution No.1 sought? If we declare it unconstitutional because Article 110(3) and (4) was not followed, what is the court being asked to resolve tomorrow? The most important thing about this is that – I am very happy that Sen. Orengo, my senior colleague in the profession, started by disclosing that he is counsel in this matter. These are the same people who took the matter to court and awaiting ruling on 2nd which is Friday, the day after tomorrow. They are awaiting the decision of the court on whether or not there was constitutionalism in the passing of this Bill. What are we doing now as the Senate? Mr. Speaker, Sir, are we being asked to preempt what the High Court will do or are we being asked to come up with a resolution to say that this is an unconstitutional resolution? What will happen if the court rules that it is not unconstitutional? We will have two institutions of this Republic giving contrary opinions about a matter affecting all of us, as a nation, and that will be a danger. That is why I have been on record as saying that if we want to have true democracy in this country, then we must respect and build institutions. We must respect and abide by what the court will say on Friday. If any of us does not agree with it, they will go to the Court of Appeal, and subsequently, to the Supreme Court. The question we must ask ourselves is: What will be the effect of making a resolution today while we are still awaiting a declaration by the High Court? We are dealing with this matter as a preliminary point of objection. We should not enter into the trap of dealing with matters sub judice when, indeed, we are enjoined by our own Standing Orders. It is not entirely correct to say that the Standing Orders are not constitutional. The Standing Orders are founded in the Constitution because it is the Constitution that provides that the House of the Senate shall create Standing Orders that will govern how the Senate carries out its business. Mr. Speaker, Sir, we are waiting from you a ruling that will be very important. This ruling will be important because it will finally lay to rest what is sub judice and what is not. This is important. That is why none of us is going to the merits or demerits of the substance. We are trying to protect the institution called the Senate and the High Court or Judiciary, so that we are together on this. We should create strong institutions and, therefore, a strong democracy in this country. With those few remarks, if you look at the declaration sought and the resolution we have been asked to make in this House, you will possibly not find anything other than the fact that this matter is sub judice . Thank you."
}