Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 706554,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/706554/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 211,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ababu",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 108,
        "legal_name": "Ababu Tawfiq Pius Namwamba",
        "slug": "ababu-namwamba"
    },
    "content": "where State organs openly and without any justifiable cause disrespect court orders or rulings of the court. And courts have, in virtually all instances, been helpless. A ministry, department of Government, or organ of State just chooses to disregard a court order. And courts have been virtually powerless to act in such instances. I would want to see stringent provisions in this Bill, which are not there at all, this Bill does not make even any mention of that, that would punish severely and act as a deterrent to this habit that has been witnessed time and again of State organs and departments of Government openly, blatantly disrespecting court orders, and even conducting themselves in a manner--- Court proceedings are on or a matter is alive in court and a department of Government proceeds to behave in a very cavalier manner by continuously referring to those court proceedings and even taking actions or measures that ultimately compromise the sanctity of those proceedings. That is an area where this Bill could do with some strong additional provision to arrest that mischief that has been perpetrated continuously by the Government. There are some very good provisions in this Bill. I want to applaud Clauses 15 and 16 of this Bill, which protect fair criticism, complaint against a presiding officer of a subordinate court from provisions of contempt. And the language used here is very clear, without leaving any place of ambiguity. The clauses read: ―15. 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. 16. A person is not guilty of contempt of court in respect of any complaint made by that person in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any subordinate court to a competent authority, a judge or a judicial officer.‖ Those are very progressive provisions because then they give licence or provide space for affected persons to fairly comment on ongoing proceedings and also to sound alarm in instances where a judicial officer in a subordinate court may be conducting himself or herself in a manner that may amount to breach or placing the course of justice at risk. It is also important to note that Section 4 of the Bill has clearly defined what amounts to contempt in regard to civil and criminal proceedings. Overall, it is a progressive Bill but let us take a fresh look at any provision that may offend the Constitution. Significantly, let us provide clear provisions that will forestall or act as a deterrent against continuous and persistent breach of the sanctity of court orders and court proceedings by Government and State organs. I support."
}