Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 706534,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/706534/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 191,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ng’ongo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 110,
        "legal_name": "John Mbadi Ng'ong'o",
        "slug": "john-mbadi"
    },
    "content": "then that is not contempt of court. Many times people have spoken on matters of national interest and you are told that you are mentioning a matter that is before court and, therefore, it is contempt of court. I am happy that we are now legislating to define that if I have made a fair comment that is in the best interests of the people of Kenya, then that will not be construed to mean that I am in contempt of court. Therefore, I will not fear that I will be subjected to punishment. Clause 14(1) states that a person is not guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding held in open court if the report is published in good faith. I have mentioned that our Constitution is robust. We have a Constitution that protects the bill of rights comparable to none globally. Therefore, we must be very careful when we exercise or apply this law on contempt of court. I am happy that we are making it easy for the media to report on the court proceedings because Kenyans are interested in knowing and following the proceedings of the court, especially on cases like those on corruption. We would want to see and follow when those cases are being transacted so that Kenyans, in their own minds through layman’s interpretation, which is usually very accurate, determine who is guilty and we are able to judge whether our judicial system has reformed. Many times we complain about our judicial system being corrupt, but if they are exposed to scrutiny by the public in the same way that Parliament and Parliamentary Committees are subjected to public scrutiny, you get the baying of the public such that even those who would want to circumvent and defeat the course of justice will find it very difficult. You will have to exercise your powers with restraint and in accordance with the law. There are provisions that probably need clarity and to be looked into properly. For instance, Clause 20 states that a person is not guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose the source of information contained in a publication for which the person is responsible, unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that such disclosure is necessary in the interest of justice, national security or for the prevention of disorder crime. At the face of it, I have no problem with such a provision but, once bitten twice shy. A number of times, provisions like protecting national security have previously been abused by people who, for other reasons, would want to subject you to unnecessary frustration, not because you have done anything which will compromise national security, but ordinarily they do this because they are protecting the interests of a few individuals, more so those who occupy some senior offices in Government. Unless we come out clearly to define what it is that would be regarded as compromising national security, you will find the same law enforcers abusing or rather misusing very well intentioned provisions in law to punish innocent people and cause them untold misery. This is a very good step towards coming out clearly on what is contempt of court; whether it is civil or criminal and it is clearly defined. It is also coming out that the punishment is now defined. If you are involved in contempt of court, then the punishment is prescribed. More importantly, I am happy with the provisions on how you can defend yourself or what is not considered as contempt of court. As a legislator who stands here to protect the interests of Kenyans, I am more concerned about how I protect the interests of that person who may find himself on the wrong side of the law because of misinterpretation of contempt of court. As they say, it is better to release criminals than to jail an innocent person. In my view, we need to be more particular and more concerned with protecting the freedoms that we enjoy as a country. I support the Bill. 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."
}