HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 706553,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/706553/?format=api",
"text_counter": 210,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Ababu",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 108,
"legal_name": "Ababu Tawfiq Pius Namwamba",
"slug": "ababu-namwamba"
},
"content": "Therefore, insofar as this Bill seeks to edify the court process, to protect the court process from contemptuous actions or expressions that may call court process to question or cause odium to those processes, this Bill is absolutely timely, even though I want to agree that maybe we are over-legislating a bit. This is a Bill whose provisions could, perhaps, have fitted in the Judicature Act, constituting a core part of that Act. Therefore, even as we proceed to debate and pass this Bill, Government and the State Law Office need to take a look at the concern that we may be proliferating the legal sphere with too many little Bills when in fact in the recent past, we have been moving towards an arrangement of consolidating legislation and not scattering little pieces of legislation all over the place. Having said that, I want also to put it on record that even as we pass this Bill, let us be careful not to use this Bill to limit any of the fundamental rights and freedoms that are enacted in our Bill of Rights. Specifically, I want to draw attention to Article 33 of the Constitution on the freedom of expression, Article 34 that guarantees freedom of media, and Article 35 which guarantees the freedom of access to information. Of course, when you look at Article 24 of the Constitution which provides premises to attempt to limit any of these fundamental rights and freedoms, that Article, for avoidance of doubt, reads in Clause (1) that: ―A right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall not be limited except by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including— (a) the nature of the right or fundamental freedom; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedoms of others; and (e) the relation between the limitation and its purpose and whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.‖ I raise this important point of being cautious to ensure that none of the provisions of this Bill amount to unconstitutional limitation of any of the provisions of the Constitution, especially in light of Clause 19 of the Bill which prohibits use of recording devices. That clause specifically says that it is contemptuous of court to use in court any recording device or instrument for recording proceedings, tape recorder or other instrument for recording sound except with the leave of the court. In this time and age when information technology is growing in leaps and bounds, and information is shared so freely, one would want to wonder loudly or openly as to why we would limit anybody in court recording proceedings for purposes of sharing that information. I am just imagining in view of Article 35 of the Constitution that gives a carte blanche to access to information, I do not see anything that would compromise the sanctity of the court process or court proceedings by anybody choosing, sitting in an open court, to share information through a recording device. Therefore, I would invite the drafters of this Bill to take a fresh look at that Clause 19 and read it carefully against Articles 24, 33, 34 and 35 of the Constitution. I have a strong feeling that Clause 19 may be offensive to the provisions of the Constitution that I have just mentioned. That aside, let me also say that one of the greatest challenges in enforcing court orders in this country has been contempt by State institutions. We have had countless examples in the past 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."
}