Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 527072,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/527072/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 292,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "or secret. “92(1) Subject to paragraph (5), no Senator shall refer to any particular matter which is sub judice or which, by the operation of any law, is secret. (2)A matter shall be considered to be sub judice when it refers to active criminal or civil proceedings and the discussion of such matter is likely to prejudice its fair determination. (3) in determining whether a criminal or civil proceeding is active, the following shall apply-” What is relevant to us is (3)(c): “Civil proceedings shall be deemed to be active on arrangements for hearing, such as setting down a case for trial, has been made, until the proceedings are ended by judgment or discontinuance.” In this case, the hearing has taken place but judgment is yet to be given. 92(5) “Notwithstanding this order, the Speaker may allow reference to any matter before the Senate or a Committee.” That was also misused. It did not say before the court. It says before the Senate or before a committee. The Standing Orders themselves were actually informed by the rulings of Speaker Marende, which I think we will all agree they are fine. Does the Speaker have discretion? Yes. Does the Speaker use the discretion on the basis of Standing Order No. 1(2)? No, but he can where something is not provided in terms of procedure. He is even constrained to the extent that he must go by the Constitution, statutes and other usages and practices. We have Standing Order No. 92 that has provided for it. The final bit which I think weakens our case_ _ _ Before I do so, I will go to the resolutions: “Now, therefore, the Senate resolves: 1. That the Security Laws (Amendment) Act is unconstitutional and there null and void as the consideration and passage part of the Bill violated Article 110(3) and (4) of the Constitution. 2. That the Security Laws (Amendment) Act be included in the compendium of the Bill set out in the Resolution of the Senate of Tuesday 11th November, 2014---” 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"
}