Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 732344,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/732344/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 118,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, the doctrine of separation of powers and parliamentary practice in leading world democracies require that Parliament be left to be the sole arbiter of its own internal proceedings. Indeed, on the subject of ―Powers of Courts with Reference to Legislative Procedure‖, Mason‘s Manual of Legislative Procedure, which is widely applied in the legislative Houses of the United States (US) of America, in Section 71, page 59, states that the courts cannot interfere with rule-making powers of legislative bodies. The manual states that, and I quote: Sec.71 ―The courts will not disturb a ruling on a parliamentary question made by a legislative body having authority to make rules for its governance and acting within the scope of its powers.‖ Further, the United States Supreme Court has had many occasions to consider the extent to which the United States courts may call into question internal proceedings in either Houses of Congress. In the landmark case of Marshall Field & Co. versus Clark, 143 US 649 (1892), the relevant brief facts were as follows: While engrossing the McKinley Tariff Bill, a clause known as Section 30, relating to a rebate of taxes on tobacco, which was shown by the journals of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to have been regularly passed by both Houses, was omitted; and that the engrossed Act, as attested by the Vice-President and the Speaker of the House, and as approved by the President and deposited with the Secretary of State, was not the Act which was passed by the Houses of Congress. There was contention that the Act was, therefore, not a statute of the United States, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The US Supreme Court held that federal courts will generally not allow challenges to statutes on the grounds that the versions passed by the Congress and the Senate differed from each other. The Supreme Court held that the judiciary must treat the attestations of ―the two Houses through their presiding officers‖ as conclusive evidence that a Bill was passed by the Congress. The Supreme Court also held that a Bill signed by the leaders of the Congress and the Senate establishes that the Congress passed the text included therein, ―according to the forms of the Constitution,‖ and it ―should be deemed complete and unimpeachable.‖ The Supreme Court further held that the Judiciary should not delve into the internal proceedings of the legislative chambers to the validity of their claims. Appellants had argued that the constitutional clause providing that ―each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings,‖ implied that whether a Bill had passed must be determined by an examination of the journals. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation of the Journals Clause, holding that the Constitution left it to the Congress to determine how a Bill is to be authenticated as having passed. The Supreme Court finally stated that: ―the respect due to coequal and independent departments‖ demands that the courts accept as passed, all bills authenticated in the manner provided by the Congress.‖ Hon. Members, let me now turn to the issue of sub judice rule, which was alluded to by the Member for Kiambu, Hon. Jude Njomo. The sub judice rule, which is provided for under Standing Order 89, is a tenet adopted by most legislatures in the Commonwealth. It is intended to espouse the rule of law and the right to fair trial. The rule generally provides that where an issue is awaiting determination by the courts, it should not be discussed in the House through a Motion, debate or question in a manner that may prejudice the decision to be made in court. You will also notice that the sub judice rule is not absolute. It is limited, under Paragraph (5) of the said Standing Order, so as not to hinder the constitutional rights of Parliament to discuss any matter before it. 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."
}