Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 848812,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/848812/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 314,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "August 1, 2018 SENATE DEBATES 32 Sen. (Dr.) Kabaka",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to contribute to this issue with regard to jurisprudence on these very broad and disturbing principles of law. From the onset, I need to state that Article 51 cited by the distinguished Senator for Baringo County is the wrong Article; he ought to have quoted Article 50. Secondly, under the principle of separation of powers, there is nothing on earth and under the sun which distinctively prevents Parliament from debating any issue so long as it does not in any way prejudice an individual’s right. What does it mean? I do know that when it comes to procurement of evidence pursuant to the Evidence Act, Cap 8 of the Laws of Kenya, there are provisions to the effect that documents or records like HANSARD do not necessarily bind the courts of law. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I duly appreciate in certain areas in criminal law where the subjects cause a court to determine on retracted or illegally obtained evidence. There is an area where Lord Denning said that even though the courts are not bound by the HANSARD reports in their determination of the findings in their judgment, he himself at certain times would go and peruse the HANSARD reports to look at the intention of Parliament. That is why I am saying that it would be very dangerous if we are going to apply the rules of sub judice with that regard. This is because matters are pending in court which are criminal or homicide in nature. What if a crazy judge - with due respect - behaves like Lord Denning in that regard and comes and sees the outcome of the HANSARD which was killed at the preliminary level? Mr. Deputy Speaker Sir, before I sit down, I urge you, Chair, to dismiss in limine the interruption by the distinguished Senator for Baringo County. More so, if you look at the public good, the interpretation of the Constitution – the Article 50 that he has mentioned – cannot be applied anyhow. The courts are called upon - when it comes to interpretation of the Constitution or even Statutes - to interpret it purposively in favour of the public as opposed to individual private right. I sit and support that the point raised by the distinguished Senator for Baringo County be dismissed and we be allowed to proceed with this debate on the report by Sen. Mutula Kilonzo Jnr."
}