Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 578817,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/578817/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 252,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Maanzo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2197,
        "legal_name": "Daniel Kitonga Maanzo",
        "slug": "daniel-kitonga-maanzo"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker for giving me this opportunity to contribute to this important Bill. Article 160 (5) of the Constitution allows a judge or any member of the Judiciary, while deliberating on any matter and following the law, to have no liability whatsoever - whether criminal or civil. This is lacking when it comes to Parliament because the three institutions of a government - the Judiciary, Parliament and the Executive - all enjoy separation of powers. For equity to be among the three of them, then the same sub-article should be imported when it applies to Parliament. A Member of Parliament (MP), while following the law and active within the law, cannot face any liability or be charged after they leave Parliament or while still in Parliament. This is why I am supporting this Bill. It is very important so that there is equity and fairness. If you rely on the Powers and Privileges Act to balance the same, then the argument by a judge or the Judiciary would be that, that Act of Parliament is subordinate to the Constitution and, therefore, that argument would not be sustained in court. It is only fair that they be brought at par and we have a similar constitutional enactment or amendment to make sure that we bring the two bodies at par. Whatever happens here cannot be checked by the Judiciary while it is going on. That is why we do not have a judge seated in the Chambers of Parliament. It can also be argued that if you do not do the same, then this precedent which has been created will be used in the future. The Judiciary makes law by way of precedent. It will be quoted again and again and other people will follow the fate of Hon. Gor Sungu. I support this constitutional amendment and I urge Members that it is very important. It is for the future of this nation; not just for this sitting Parliament. We will have a proper equilibrium of separation of powers and whatever matters that are going on in Parliament are not subjected to judicial proceedings. As a practicing lawyer for many years, I have seen that some judges are very firm on the issues of sub judice and matters that are live in Parliament. The moment an application is filed, the judge would state “that motto” and ask the lawyer what the status of the matter was and if it was still live in Parliament. The moment it was known that it was still live in Parliament, then the judge would immediately dismiss it and wait to see what Parliament would do. We would also like other judges to take that into account. But there has to be a law to guide them so that they can interpret it correctly. The moment that law is missing, then there is nothing to stop the judge from going on to make a judgement against an utterance made by an MP because of the proceedings. The precincts of Parliament include parliamentary Committees, whether they are sitting in Kenya or abroad, in Nairobi or Mombasa or whatever part of the country. That constitution is constituted under the Standing Orders and it is viewed as a parliamentary sitting. Though it is very well explained, the interpretation chosen then had to take the day because the Constitution did not state it clearly as a superior role. I support the Bill."
}