Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 578781,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/578781/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 216,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kaluma",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1565,
        "legal_name": "George Peter Opondo Kaluma",
        "slug": "george-peter-opondo-kaluma"
    },
    "content": "In this Bill, I am seeking to cure a situation which worried the nation quite a while back and it is something that continues to bother people. The idea that courts have been intervening on matters Parliament is dealing with while those parliamentary proceedings are still going on. I am not saying that the courts ought not to check Parliament. Legitimately, the courts must check Parliament in the exercise of the authority given by the people of Kenya. However, now that the courts seem not to be alive to the need to keep detached from parliamentary actions and proceedings until they conclude, there is need for a provision that would make it clear. While Parliament exercises the sovereign will of the people of Kenya in dealing with a matter as important as the Budget and others, let the courts wait. Once Parliament makes its decision either way, the courts have the constitutional mandate in terms of checks and balances to intervene when petitioned by any Kenyan, whether ultimately what Parliament passed or an action of Parliament is in accordance with the Constitution. The courts should come at the end to question whether what Members of Parliament, seated in either House, did is in accordance with the Constitution or not. Indeed, if the courts were to find that Parliament passed a law, for instance, which violates the provisions of the Constitution, then in invoking the supremacy of the Constitution, ours being a constitutional democracy, those laws will fall. Some provisions of the Security Laws (Amendment) Act which we passed the other day were annulled by the courts. The history of these matters is very long. We have situations where a whole law has been struck out. I can remember the famous In Duplum Rule law, which was brought by Hon. Joe Donde, then an indefatigable Member of this Parliament. It was wholly nullified by the courts. The Kenya Roads Board Act was wholly nullified by the court on finding that, indeed, what Parliament did contravened the Constitution in terms of those provisions the Kenyan people put in the Constitution as a principal document. However, let the courts wait until Parliament exercises the sovereign will as the representative of the people and make a decision before they can intervene. There is a limb to this matter which is very critical. People will remember when we had issues of governors in various courts, for example, the case of the Governor of Embu against Members of the County Assembly (MCAs) and others. In fact, this is what informed my thinking around this provision. We had a situation where Parliament was proceeding and the courts were also proceeding with the same matter. While Parliament adhered to the doctrine of sub judice, the courts appeared not to have regard that this matter was going on in Parliament. Two things happen. One, public resources and public time are spent on resolving a single issue that may be of concern to the people of Kenya by two organs of Government, which would rather wait for either to proceed. This was a clear case that was still proceeding before Parliament. Another thing happened which never caught the attention of a number of us. We may be forgetting. I remember there were even attempts to cite the Speakers of the National Assembly, the Senate and those of the relevant county assemblies for contempt. So, you imagine the role of a Speaker of Parliament and imagine how constrained Members of Parliament would be in terms of liberty to debate as if they do not know. This is because the Speaker is a Member of Parliament sui generis . You are seated there and because Hon. Kaluma and others were debating, the Speaker is cited for contempt on a matter that would rather be presided by Parliament before it goes to another forum to test its constitutionality. We are not fighting the courts. I would be the last person to fight the courts given the fact that I am a lawyer as I continue to practice before the courts. We are telling the courts to let the The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}