HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 732351,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/732351/?format=api",
"text_counter": 125,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "The courts cannot, therefore, purport to exercise quasi-judicial supervision over proceedings in Parliament without respecting the clear provisions of Article 117 of the Constitution. Additionally, Hon. Members, under Article 19(3) of the Constitution, the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights— (a) belong to each individual and are not granted by the State; (b) do not exclude other rights and fundamental freedoms not in the Bill of Rights, but recognized or conferred by law, except to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Chapter; and, (c) are subject only to the limitations contemplated in this Constitution. This, therefore, shows that the import of Article 117 can only be fully understood if restated and evaluated against the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the mandate of the courts. In my view, it is clear from the holistic exposition of the Constitution that, Article 117(1), which confers freedom of speech and debate to Parliament, is clearly one of the limitations to the Bill of Rights contemplated by the Constitution in Article 19(3). Consequently, a person moving to the High Court under Article 165(3) of the Constitution, on the basis of a denial, violation, infringement or threat on a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has to take cognizance of the privilege and protection accorded to parliamentary proceedings by Article 117 of the Constitution. It is with this spirit that Article 165(3)(c) confers jurisdiction on the High Court to hear an appeal from a decision of a tribunal appointed under this Constitution to consider the removal of a person from office, other than a tribunal appointed under Article 144. It is my humble view, in respect of matters for removal from office, that the framers of our Constitution must have contemplated involvement of the High Court at the tail-end of the process and not at the beginning, or in the course of the parliamentary proceeding as this may be obtrusive to the removal process. Hon. Members, although Article 165(6) of the Constitution further gives the High Court supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, Parliament retains the responsibility under Article 160(1) to legislate on the procedure and manner in which the High Court shall exercise this power without offending the spirit of Articles 19(3), 117 and 165(3)(c) of the Constitution. Indeed, Article 160(1) of the Constitution that guarantees judicial independence, provides as follows: ―In the exercise of judicial authority, the Judiciary, as constituted by Article 161, shall be subject only to this Constitution and the law and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority.‖ Hon. Members, the responsibility is, therefore, squarely placed on Parliament to consider making the necessary amendments to the law, including and not limited to the Civil Procedure Act and other laws so as to provide for the procedural exercise of the powers conferred on the courts within the limits contemplated by the Constitution, especially as regards the doctrine of separation of powers. 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."
}