Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 789250,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/789250/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 209,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The 11th Parliament was unable to…. If you recall there was a Motion by Hon. Peter Kaluma seeking to amend Article 165 of the Constitution to remove matters whose consideration was reserved by the institution of the Legislature, both at national and county levels from being taken to the Judiciary. It went through this House but, of course, it died as usual in the other place even though they are the ones who have been inundated by those injunctions. They still allow to be injuncted continuously. What Hon. Kaluma had in mind then was quite innovative and made a lot of sense. As Parliament, you will do your process and once you are through with it, anybody can take your decision to the courts. Let the courts make anything they will out of your decision because that is their function. But when you are in that process, you should not be stopped from doing it because as you have just rightly said, we have spent a lot of man hours both at the Committee and the House levels reason being that there has been a conservatory order. It is for that reason that the Supreme Court pronounced itself on 15th December, last year on the desire for courts to be cautious when dealing with stopping other arms of Government from performing functions that are time bound either by statute or by the Constitution. It is a matter that we are waiting to see how the Judiciary deals with it because the Supreme Court has already said so. It looks like the High Court does not listen to the Supreme Court. So, even as we say that there are others who are not respecting… I wonder because the decision by the Supreme Court on 15th December, last year should be binding to the lower courts – the High Court included, but it has chosen not be bound by it. Notwithstanding that decision by the Supreme Court, the High Court says, “do not deal with it.” We wonder what the position of the decision by the Supreme Court is, with regard to this kind of matter. It means that the High Court has decided that it is not bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court. There is anarchy or near-anarchy in the Judiciary where the decisions of highest court on the land are not binding to the lower courts. That is what it is. Hon. John Mbadi almost finalised this matter. Hon. Kajwang’ what was it that you wanted to say?"
}