Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 578787,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/578787/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 222,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kang’ata",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1826,
        "legal_name": "Irungu Kang'ata",
        "slug": "irungu-kangata"
    },
    "content": "where, one day, God forbid, the Speaker will be cited for contempt. It will be a very embarrassing situation. It will reach a situation where, God forbid, the President can be cited for contempt. So, to prevent such kind of a situation, Hon. Kaluma has come up with a very good amendment which is clearly proposing to amend Articles 117, 165 and 196 of the Constitution. The import of the amendment to Article117 is to provide that Parliament may, for the purposes of orderly and effective discharge of the business of Parliament, provide for powers, privileges and immunity of Parliament and its Committees and its leadership. Article 165 proceeds to provide issues relating to matters that fall within the functions of Parliament which are pending and undergoing considerations before Parliament; that is either in the Houses or in the county assembly. The operative clause which I want Members to note is the pending and undergoing consideration. That is the key operative term in that amendment. That means it is not a concluded matter. We are referring to pending and undergoing consideration before Parliament or matters under that kind of circumstances. We need to protect Members who are doing their work here because they may be accused of defamation. We have been told about the case of Gor Sungu and several other things which can occur here. Under the Standing Orders, if you feel there is a way for instance that a Member of Parliament has abused the privilege granted to him by the Constitution or by Standing Orders, you have the liberty to write to the Speaker and he can commence internal disciplinary mechanism against a Member of Parliament. To my best opinion, let us say for instance, I defame a person who is not with me here, and then you feel I want a remedy against that Member of Parliament, it is very simple. Write to the Speaker and he will take the necessary action against that person but, the issue of dragging a Member of Parliament to the court, is not good and creates the following problems. One, it limits the freedom of speech. Two, means we have become subservient to the courts. This is what we call ouster clauses. It is a clause that ousts the jurisdictions of courts. It is not only in parliamentary practice but even in commercial cases. Take for instance a contract. If you were to provide that in case of a dispute you are going to refer your disputes to an arbitrator, the court usually upholds such kind of clauses. This is not something new. It happens even in international diplomacy. If you have a dispute with a UN official, you will write to the UN and they will be taken before a UN tribunal. You will not go to the courts. So, it happens in other jurisdictions and other entities too. I support the Bill because it is a very good thing to ensure that the independence of Parliament is maintained by this amendment. I second."
}