Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 706487,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/706487/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 144,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Dido",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2749,
        "legal_name": "Col (Rtd) Ali Rasso Dido",
        "slug": "col-rtd-ali-rasso-dido"
    },
    "content": "Article 23 of our Constitution is on the authority of courts to uphold and enforce the Bill of Rights. This, therefore, is indicative that our courts are at the forefront in ensuring that the rights of individuals are respected. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to provide social justice. In this particular case, as we go to the Third Reading Stage of the Contempt of Court Bill, we must avoid contradiction on the part of this Bill. I invite you to read Clause 10 of this Bill on the strict liability rule. In this Act, the strict liability rule means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so. In Clause 13 on defence of innocent publications or distribution, a person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule if that person has published any matter which interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or intends to obstruct the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceedings pending at any time of publication, if at that time, that person has no reasonable grounds to believe that the proceedings were pending. Hon. Speaker, if you compare Clauses 10 and 13, and as we make this law, we must ensure that there is no contradiction between any parts of this Bill. While reading this Bill, I noticed that it is a delicate balance. It is a question of the chicken and the egg. It says that a person is not guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and determined. How often are those comments in newspapers fair and innocent? When do they become contempt of court? Sometimes we leave those comments to be interpreted by individuals. I have serious concerns on Clause 19 on the use of recording devices. In this day and age, in an open court and as long as the court does not sit in camera, the court proceedings should be recorded. Otherwise, it is an infringement on the right to access to information and the Bill of Rights. We must be careful on that part. I am also glad they have captured sources of information. When a witness feels that they should not divulge information to the court that does not constitute contempt of court. I know Kenyans are happy with this Bill because it defines the offences that constitute contempt of court. These include threatening and intimidating the judicial officer or the judge, wilfully without lawful excuse disobeys and causes obstructions or disturbances in the course of a judicial proceeding. Interference with the court of justice constitutes contempt of court. This Bill gives us a position where we feel that as we develop this understanding, we are clear about the offences that constitute contempt of court, particularly politicians who make innocent comments on the happenings of the court or media operators who report court proceedings. With those few remarks, I support."
}