Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 706466,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/706466/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 123,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. A.B Duale",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 15,
        "legal_name": "Aden Bare Duale",
        "slug": "aden-duale"
    },
    "content": "There are certain times when the free media and citizens want to exercise their conscience; free expression, assembly, association and a political participation and the matter is in court. The citizens cannot express themselves because they are told the judge or the magistrate will impose contempt of court on that institution or that individual. What precipitated this Bill is this: Does the interpretation of the contempt of court exclude the right of that judge or anybody within the Judiciary? Can the House and the Legislature define that contempt of court? Our finding of being in contempt of court may result from failure to obey a lawful order of a court or showing disrespect to the judge, disruption of proceedings through bad behaviour, publication of material or non-disclosure of material which, in doing so, is deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. Contempt of court is when you interfere with trial proceedings, show some disrespect to the judge, disobey a lawful order of the courts or produce a publication of a material or disclosure of a prohibited material. We have no problem with that. That is what other jurisdictions see as a contempt of court. You can walk into a court of law and you feel you want to report on that matter and you have no clear guidance on up to what level you can report. That is because there is a blanket rule of contempt of court on journalists who report on that. So, this is one of the Bills that the Legislature must grapple with and say: ―At what level can a court say that you have acted in contempt of court? You are fined for being in contempt of court as a result of this and that.‖ The law of contempt is essentially concerned with interference with the administration of justice and, therefore, justice in itself that is flouted by contempt of court and not an individual court or judge who is attempting to administer. So, the contempt of court is flouted on the institution and not on the individual judge or the individual court. Contempt takes two forms - criminal contempt and civil contempt. Civil contempt involves acts of omission such as disobeying the direction of a court. When the court gives direction to a particular litigant or to an institution, that acts of omission by disobeying the direction given to a person by the court constitutes civil contempt. Criminal contempt includes anything that could be called disturbance such as repeatedly talking out of the terms, bringing forth previous banned evidence or harassment of any other party in the court room. So, it is well defined. Where you create disturbance and harassment of either a witness or any other person in the courtroom, that is criminal contempt. That is in the definition that is given by other jurisdictions. Whether we borrow from them or not, it is different. If I go to the Bill itself, Part I deals with preliminary matters. Clause 3 sets out the objectives of the Bill which are to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. So, we are still upholding the dignity and authority of the court. However, we do not want the court to abuse the powers given to it under an independent Judiciary and to fish out every now and then the journalists and citizens in the guise of contempt of court. It ensures compliance with the direction of the court, the observance and the respect of the due process of law, preserves the effective and the impartial system of justice and maintains public confidence in the administration of justice. Clause 4 is where we start with how to define the contempt of court. It defines what contempt of court constitutes. Part II of the Bill sets out the jurisdictions of the courts in punishing contempt of court and provides for the institution of proceedings. So, Part II deals with the jurisdictions of the court in terms of punishing when you are in contempt of court. Part III of the Bill specifies the defences to contempt of court and this includes failure to comment made in good faith. If you make a fair comment in good faith of a matter before the court or the publication of a fair and accurate input--- If a journalist makes an analysis of 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."
}