HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 732343,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/732343/?format=api",
"text_counter": 117,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Hon. Members, in view of the foregoing, it is, therefore, my view that if the courts are to be said to have jurisdiction in this matter, it then must be after the determination by the National Assembly of the question whether there was, indeed, a ground for removal of the Auditor- General under Article 251(3) of the Constitution. Accordingly, Hon. Members, it is my view that any attempt by the High Court to pre-empt or stop the Committee or the National Assembly from taking actions to enable it to be satisfied under Article 251(3) of the Constitution on whether the Petition discloses a ground for removal of the Auditor-General is premature at this stage of the process. Indeed, such interference flies in the face of the principle that the process of removal of State officers from office through legislative intervention, in what other jurisdictions is called impeachment, vests entirely with the legislature as an ultimate check on the other arms of government and oversight of State organs provided for in our Constitution. Hon. Members, moving on to the second question, which relates to the right of a petitioner to petition Parliament, as you are all aware, Article 119 of the Constitution clearly espouses the right of a petitioner to petition Parliament and it provides that every person has a right to petition Parliament to consider any matter within its authority. This is a right, which in my view, the Speaker and certainly the House cannot curtail or limit. The petition before the Departmental Committee on Finance, Planning and Trade seeking to remove the Auditor-General was certainly submitted to Parliament in furtherance of clear provisions of the Constitution, the Fair Administrative Action law and the Standing Orders. Moreover, under the provisions of Article 47 of the Constitution, and the Fair Administrative Action law, every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedural. The offices of the Speaker and the Clerk of the National Assembly are conscious of these provisions while processing such petitions. We are aware of the need to balance between the rights of the petitioners and the State officers whom the petitioners are seeking to remove from office. As such, the court order, which in effect seeks to impede the National Assembly from considering the petition, is a clear violation and blatant abrogation of the rights of the petitioner to petition the National Assembly. There is the question of whether the High Court has powers to suspend the National Assembly Standing Orders, and set aside the internal decisions of the Speaker and the House. It has been claimed that the court order has disregarded the powers of the National Assembly and its Speaker to issue directions and deadlines to Committees of the House. A question was also posed on who between the National Assembly and the High Court, should be directing the internal procedures of the House. The powers of the Speaker to preside in the proceedings of the House are set out in Article 107(1)(a) of the Constitution, which provides that the Speaker of the House shall preside at any sitting of a House of Parliament. To ―preside‖ means to be in a position of authority in a meeting or gathering; and that authority must include powers to issue lawful directions to committees and Members of the House. To that extent, I am of the view that no person or body has authority to preside in Parliament except the respective Speakers of the two Houses, or Members of the two Houses who are lawfully authorized to stand in for the respective Speakers. It must also not be forgotten that the committees of the House and the Standing Orders have their anchorage in Article 124(1) of the Constitution, which provides as follows: Art. 124 (1) ―Each House of Parliament may establish committees, and shall make Standing Orders for the orderly conduct of its proceedings, including the proceedings of its committees.‖ 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."
}