Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 526870,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/526870/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 90,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Some of us were in the trenches of making the Constitution and realised that as we made it, this Parliament; being the expression of the sovereign will of the people must be allowed to speak on anything and everything, whatever the agenda is. Therefore, the freedom of speech provided to this Parliament is absolute. Secondly, Article 117(2) says in part, Parliament “may”. That is why we decided to have Standing Orders to guide the rules of debate. It is important as we look at the constitutionality of Standing Order No.92 to remember that Parliament must discuss anything and everything as one of the avenues for redress for the people of Kenya. This does not prevent them from having the capacity to go to court, to come to this Parliament or to persuade the Executive in whatever forum that we may be in a position to entertain or speak to. Therefore, to limit ourselves and to say that this Parliament has limit in terms of freedom of speech is to breach the Constitution which allows us to speak on anything and everything. That is why, in the first instance, I came to this Parliament with the hope that where there is travesty anywhere, we will discuss it here and pronounce ourselves on the matter. That is why we have privileges. That is why matters that are pronounced in this Parliament are safeguarded within those kinds of privileges and legislations that we have created. Today is a moment in history to revolutionalise the traditions of Parliament across the world that the rules of sub judice do not apply where the sovereign will of the people wants to express itself on a matter. Courts are created by that sovereign will, we are created by that sovereign will and we represent that sovereign will almost directly. Therefore, in the event that you want to go into specifics, I will also assist you in that this regard. It would have been easier for you to use Article 117 of the Constitution. On 30th July, 2009, Speaker Marende made this pronouncement. “If this House is to remain relevant, it must resonate with the concerns of the people.” We know the concerns regarding this Act. In this instance, the public interest was the response to the pyramid schemes. There is overwhelming interest to the Security Laws (Amendment) Act. The ruling continues to say. “The sub judice rule was not crafted to defeat the ability of this House to pronounce itself on matters of national importance.” This is a matter of national importance. If the constitutionality of this Act is not a matter of national concern to you, then it is a matter of national importance to us. We know that power when left unchecked can be abused. The ruling continues to read; “to rule in this manner would be to reduce the House to a bystander.” It irks me to see my colleagues from the other side of the aisle wanting to relegate this House to a bystander. They are watching helplessly unable to intervene as rights of Kenyans are imperiled constantly. Some of my colleagues here have thumped these Senate proceedings as if they have just scored from a non-ranked system of the Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE). They are very excited. Today they are the same people swallowing their own jargon and words saying that we need to protect the 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"
}