Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 543319,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/543319/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 147,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "h",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": ". He had asked me whether politics was at play in this issue. I categorically told him that if politics was at play, then it certainly was not ODM, of which I am the Chairman. I just wanted to make that clarification. On this issue of sub judice, I want to react and not get confined to the matter before us. This is a weighty matter where a Member is challenging that the matter we are just about to discuss is sub judice. First, that Standing Order 89(4) places the responsibility on the Member alleging the matter is sub judice to provide evidence to show that the requirements of paragraphs 2 and 3 are applicable. I did not hear that from hon. Dan Maanzo; he should have given us evidence that the matter is sub judice. More importantly, I remember that a matter similar to this one came before the House in the Tenth Parliament. We had a matter that was taken to court, when it was before Parliament. My fear is that if you rule that this matter cannot be debated on the basis it has been taken to court by a Kenyan or Kenyans, then this House, probably, may not transact any business. In future, people will be rushing to court to stop Parliament from discussing some matters. That will not work very well for the separation of powers between Parliament and the Judiciary. This is just the same way I would be hesitant to engage this House on a matter that is before the court. This House can continue transacting its business. In the event the court finds that a resolution of this House is unconstitutional, it will declare so."
}