Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 757438,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/757438/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 222,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Kang’ata",
    "speaker_title": "The Senator for Murang’a County",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1826,
        "legal_name": "Irungu Kang'ata",
        "slug": "irungu-kangata"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Sir for giving me this opportunity. My attention is drawn to Paragraph 16 of the Address by His Excellency the President yesterday. In that paragraph, the President said that he does not agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. However, he respects it. The President did not give details why he disagrees with it. Allow me to give my reasons on why that decision was a step backwards, jurisprudentially. I draw your attention to Article 49 1(f)(i). With your kind indulgence, let me read it. It states as follows: “An arrested person has the right- (f)to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than- (i) twenty-four hours after being arrested.” When this Constitution was enacted in 2010, several litigants went to court seeking an interpretation of this Article and arguing that they should be released on the basis that they had been detained for more than a 24-hour period. The jurisprudence that was set during that period provided that whenever a suspect is arrested and he or she is detained beyond 24 hours, notwithstanding the gravity of the offence, any trial subsequent to such an arrest was rendered a nullity. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I refer you to the decision of Albanas Mutua Mwasia . In that case, the accused had been charged with the offense of murder and he was released notwithstanding that there was a person who had died and there was grave commission of a major act. Several other authorities followed that case including the so-called case of Godfrey. In a nutshell, many people were released as a result of the court interpretation of this Article. However, after a period of time, a new jurisprudence was set out which tended to overthrow that original jurisprudence. Somebody argued before the Court of Appeal that it is very unfair for courts to be releasing suspects who have been detained for more than 24 hours, notwithstanding that they have done major wrongs in the society. Why?"
}