Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 664054,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/664054/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 217,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "context, and conclude with my reading of what the comparative roles of the Senate and the new empowered Judiciary are. One of the main reasons I was honoured by this invitation is that the Judiciary Transformation that I have been leading for the last five years has been partly premised on the principle of robust independence and constructive interdependence among agencies and institutions. For a political society that is obsessed with zero-sum politics, I understand it when the media continually, but wrongly frames what are normal and healthy constitutional contestations in the emerging or even mature democracy, as ‘supremacy wars’. That is being a tad too reductionist. Mr. Speaker, Sir, controversies around the role of institutions within and between arms are constitutionally anticipated – even encouraged. The moments of creative tension that, if responsibly handled by leadership, even yield better political and democratic dividends. It is what accounts for the interpretive role that the Constitution grants to the courts. The constitutional cases that have arisen since 2010, and the divergent institutional perspectives resulting therefrom, are not issues that are peculiar to Kenya. These are normal occurrences for countries struggling to find the right institutional equilibrium within the context of constitutional transition. In the United States of America (USA), after the Supreme Court delivered the famous Marbury vs. Madison Judgement that set the stage for judicial review of legislative acts, the Congress, clearly offended by the Court’s decision, defunded the Supreme Court and impeached one of the justices. Before we get too giddy and uppity here, remember that that was in the 19th Century and the democratic demands of the 21st Century do not permit such institutional ego-tripping games. I applaud the Senate for showing statesmanship and enlightened leadership in this regard. I am glad that the Senate, for most part, even when it has disagreed with the court’s decisions, has not yelled or hectored too much at the judges. It has, instead, accepted or appealed those decisions. The Senate, to its credit, organised a joint session with senior Judiciary leadership in November, 2014 to discuss sticking issues in the administration of justice and the intersection of legislative and judicial functions. That is how you build institutions and democracy, brick by brick."
}