Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 70444,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/70444/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 444,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "contention that the Commission was to make its recommendations to Parliament, and further that it was the yet to be formed Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) that had the mandate to gazette the new constituencies. The argument was that the IIBRC had usurped the power and mandate of the yet to be formed IEBC. The court, in respect of this prayer, held that the Commission could, and was, mandated to delimit and publish boundaries of constituencies and wards. The court further found that the IIBRC was mandated to determine the boundaries and in so doing, was not subject to the direction of any of the three Arms of Government, but was subject only to strict adherence to the Constitution. 3. The petitioner further contended that the Commission had failed to undertake consultations as required by the Constitution, but it was the ruling of the court that the Commission had, indeed, undertaken extensive consultations. The court also agreed with the IIBRC that a special process had been provided by the Constitution where a person may apply to the High Court for review of any decision made by the Commission. The application ought to be filed within 30 days of the publication of the decision in the Gazette Notice. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, during the hearing of this suit, the IIBRC strongly urged the court to lift an earlier injunction delivered by Lady Justice Jeane Gacheche, restraining the Commission from gazetting its findings, but the court declined to grant this prayer to the Commission on the ground that whereas the IIBRC had conformed with all requirements of the Constitution, it had nonetheless fallen short of the requirement to provide details of both names and respective boundaries of the constituencies. For that reason, the court upheld the injunction delivered by Lady Justice Gacheche, stopping the Commission from gazetting its report. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, in considering this particular matter of legal suits against the Commission, the Committee’s attention was drawn to some fundamental questions involved, including the following: 4. The law allows any person aggrieved by findings of the Commission to seek legal redress but only after, and not before, gazettement of the Commission’s findings. The questions arising here include the following: Were the various legal suits premature? If so, did the various petitioners have locus standi at the time of filing their suits? By entertaining the suit at the time, did the court have jurisdiction at that point? Did it act in consonance with the Constitution? Did the court action prior to gazettment amount to the Judiciary interfering with the work of an independent constitutional commission? Those are the questions that came up before the Committee. Two, it is a principle of law that the court cannot act in vain. It cannot make orders which it cannot enforce. Given that even after the court ruling, the IIBRC process has nonetheless moved on through Parliament, essentially because the Judiciary cannot gag Parliament. Did the court act in vain? Those are the questions we cannot ignore. Three, the judge found that the IIBRC:- (a) was to determine the names and boundaries of constituencies, (b) was to gazette its findings, (c ) could not be directed into its work by any of the three arms of Government, (d) had executed its mandate in accordance with the Constitution except that it should have gazetted both the names and the boundaries simultaneously but it declined to"
}