Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 706539,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/706539/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 196,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Odhiambo-Mabona",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 376,
        "legal_name": "Millie Grace Akoth Odhiambo Mabona",
        "slug": "millie-odhiambo-mabona"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. I wish to support the Bill. This Bill is a good piece of legislation in consolidating provisions on contempt but it would have been good practice to have some level of legislative coherence. It would have made more sense if all the consolidated pieces in terms of contempt were contained in the Judicature Act. This Parliament is doing a good job but we tend to over-legislate. In the end, we will be giving lawyers more difficult tasks. Contempt covers a lot in terms of substance but it is a by-product of proceedings. In my view, it would make sense if contempt was covered under the Judicature Act instead of having it as a standalone piece of legislation. It is not that we do not have laws on contempt but it is just that they are sprung all over. It is a good advocacy because our own Government has been very notorious in contempt of court: The court gives very clear decisions and the Government disobeys. We need very stringent provisions where there is contempt by the Government. For instance, in civil procedures, we go after the Authority to Incur Expenditure (AIE) holders who are usually the Principal Secretaries (PSs). We need to zero in on them especially when it comes to criminal contempt. I have a few concerns with some of the provisions and I am glad that the Member for Nakuru just raised them when we were sharing quietly with Hon. Ababu. Under Clause 19 of the Bill, there is a practice that has always obtained. It has never made sense to me even when I was practising especially when we are moving towards a more open society why lawyers would not wish the public to be informed about what goes on in court. The provision under Clause 19 is unconstitutional. It limits the freedom of speech and information. As lawyers, we must learn to be open. When I was practising, I was a bit off. I consider myself way ahead of my time because I sometimes say things that are seen as very outlandish but after two years, everybody follows them. For instance, when I started practising, it was unheard of for women to go to courts in trouser pants. I was chased out of court when I went into court with them. Our courts should be more progressive. We should not necessarily say that we are copying America because they showed us very recently that they have very little we can emulate as African countries. It is time for the African countries to be the trailblazers. Let us start good processes that America and other nations can follow. 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."
}