Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 706496,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/706496/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 153,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Gichigi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1909,
        "legal_name": "Samuel Kamunye Gichigi",
        "slug": "samuel-kamunye-gichigi"
    },
    "content": "I am also happy that this provision is clear that if a person disobeys a court order because he did not know and that it is not wilful, that person is not subjected to contempt of court. The other issue that needs to be dealt with, and I think I will move an amendment, is when it comes to contempt of court in the presence of the judge or during proceedings and there is this business of courts simply sentencing a person, fining him or jailing him. That person should be given a chance to be heard. In all circumstances, because contempt of court is in nature a criminal proceeding, even if somebody did something in the presence of a magistrate or a judge, before such a person is sentenced, they should be given a chance to be heard. It is also important that the judge cools his or her tempers before making that particular decision. This is because if sentencing is done at the heat of the moment, then, obviously, there can be a problem of temperament. I suggest that we put a provision that requires a magistrate or a judge to give the contemnor a chance to defend himself or herself and also record proper proceedings. Sometimes, we see situations in court where because, maybe, a phone has rang, the magistrate or judge just says that that person should be put inside the cells without giving him or her a chance to explain why his or her phone was ringing in court. The other issue that needs to be dealt with is the situation where judges should not commit people to prison in situations where a person is not able to comply with the court order that has been issued. There are certain provisions in this Bill that appear to protect the dignity of the court without considering the rights of the person cited for contempt. My proposal would be that if somebody did not intend to cause harm, lower the dignity of the court or injure the reputation of the judicial officer and that it just happened accidentally, that person should not be cited for contempt. There is this tendency to commit Accounting Officers of Ministries to jail because, may be, the Ministry has failed to pay against a certain decree or judgement. The poor Principle Secretary (PS) or any other Accounting Officer is not the one who is supposed to pay that money from his pocket. If the Government, for example, fails to provide the money to pay for those judgements and then this Government officer is put in jail, sometimes, I think it is not a fair provision and we need to take care of that. That before such action is taken, that person should be given a chance and sanctions should be visited on the Government in terms of, perhaps, attachment rather than a situation where a person who is innocent is sentenced to jail. The other thing is that courts should not issue orders that put the person intended to obey them in very difficult circumstances. For example, if you have fired your watchman and then the court says that you must reinstate such a person, how do you live with such a person? If you fail to comply with that court order, you are put in jail. We are asking the courts to also be reasonable and look at the wider picture such that they do not visit injustice on people who, otherwise, are innocent. I support this Bill, but I tell the Judiciary not to use this law to glorify themselves for personal ends or because of their temperaments."
}