Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 848299,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/848299/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 202,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "As I have stated, these are both important matters. There will be many situations where important issues are before Parliament and before the courts at the same time, but the purpose of parliamentary process must be considered. Hon. Senators, I am guided by the rulings made by the former Speaker, Hon. Kenneth Marende, and the other Speakers that I have mentioned earlier. I further view or opine that in determining whether the discussion of a matter will prejudice a fair trial, the Speaker must satisfy him or herself that the discussion will result in procedural and substantive injustices. Further, the likelihood of prejudice must be detailed with sufficient particularity to enable the Chair make the appropriate decision. The Senator who raised the question of sub judice averred that there are pending criminal proceedings with respect to the matter without availing any documentary evidence. As to the question whether the issue is one where the Speaker has discretion under Standing Order 92(5), I have argued that even if all the elements are satisfied, there is discretion under Standing Order 92(5) and my finding is in the affirmative. This is a matter which, even if all the elements of active proceedings, prejudice, et cetera, have been met, the Speaker would still have discretion to decide whether this matter should proceed or not for the following reasons. The first reason is because this is a matter of great public interest. Secondly, it is because this is a matter about human rights, including the most sacrosanct right; and that is the right to life."
}