HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 865712,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/865712/?format=api",
"text_counter": 292,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "The Deputy Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Chairperson empowered by the Standing Orders to make such orders. Those will be Orders of the Senate. The procedural law, therefore, comes from the Standing Orders and the other Orders of the Senate. Even the Standing Orders are saying that we are not adequate. There will be matters that we have either not addressed or we have not addressed them expressly. Arising from the foregoing, the Standing Order in question - Standing Order No. 1 - therefore places a very heavy responsibility on the Speaker of the House. This is because it is the Speaker who has to decide any procedural question without exception so long as it is a question that falls within the application of this Standing Order. This quasi-judicial power, therefore, must be exercised by the Speaker with patience and retrospection. That is why, for example, we have cases where a Senator comes and has such a burning issue and wants a decision made there and then. As some of my learned friends who contributed yesterday said, when the Speaker makes that decision, it forms precedent; it is creates new procedural law. Therefore, sometimes the Speaker may want, in the same way courts of law do, to retreat and have some retrospection with a lot of patience. That patience is both on the side of the Speaker and the Senators. Hon. Senators, you have also realised from time to time that even when there is a matter that is controversial, the Speaker would allow alternative views and observations. Sometimes it appears like a time-wasting exercise in some way, but this patience is similar to the patience of a Judge in a judicial function. The Speaker is placed with the onerous responsibility of creating law, precedent and binding decisions. Without this patience, the Speaker will have missed something within the Standing Orders. Therefore, this should be exercised carefully, with retrospection and a lot of patience, because of the significance in the performance of the role of the Senate and the precedent-setting nature of the determination to be made. Consequently, by tradition, once the Speaker makes a determination, it is binding. In accordance with Paragraph Two of the same Standing Order, it will be relied on in future; it is binding. I have seen a number of colleagues disagreeing with a decision made by the Speaker. First, disagreeing with a ruling is allowed; just like you can disagree with the ruling of a court of law. What is not allowed is to try to demean or impute impropriety. In fact, it is my argument that when a determination is made under this or any other Standing Order, there are ways--- You can approach the Clerk‟s office, which supports the Speaker‟s office and be guided on how the same matter can be opened up. This is because even courts of law review and revise their own decisions. Once the Speaker makes a ruling, it is binding and must be respected and honoured. You can disagree with it, but cannot go out there and call the Press to say that, that is a useless ruling or the Speaker did not understand. You can open that matter for review by the same person, because even courts of law review their own decisions. That is my view. Finally, there are many things we can say about this, because I have majored on the first paragraph. The elaboration of the second paragraph requires more time, which we do not have today. Therefore, I want to ask for full cooperation from Senators. This The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}