Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 721410,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/721410/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 38,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "But, of course, we cannot lose sight of the fact that whether or not a matter is before court, if a person has been invited to appear before a committee, he or she must first appear and claim that the matter is sub judice . It cannot be the case that this House and its committees invite people and they write letters back through whoever! This is not proper. People must appear before a committee and argue the point of sub judice . Article 125 of the Constitution is very clear. Indeed, part of the reason why I think the leadership retreat is important is because the House must express itself on such matters. Article 125(1) says that: “Either House of Parliament, and any of its committees has the power to summon any person to appear before it for the purpose of giving evidence or providing information.” What does this mean for the Houses of Parliament? Both Houses of Parliament only sit in plenary. The Constitution is very clear that this House can even summon people to appear here. When people are summoned or called by whatever method, they cannot start writing letters. They should appear and explain themselves. Indeed, we see in courts that if you are summoned, you appear and argue your case. You give reasons why you think it is wrong for you to be summoned. It must be the same case with both Houses and their committees. Hon. Mwiru, if you get into difficulties with people failing or refusing to appear, then as a Committee, you need to resolve to summon them. We will obviously facilitate your summoning them to come and require them to give evidence on oath. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) does that very effectively. He swears people so that whatever they say they know is under oath and is evidence which can be used against them."
}