HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 89268,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/89268/?format=api",
"text_counter": 19,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Order, hon. Members! I wish to draw the attention of this House to three important matters. First, the question must be asked about the applicability of Chapter 6 of the Constitution in general, and Article 75 in particular, to circumstances arising before the coming into effect of the Constitution. Is Chapter 6 and Article 75 in particular, retrospective in its effect, so that the disqualifications of persons from holding certain state offices can operate on account of misdeeds and removal from office under other laws prior to the coming into force of this Constitution? That is the first question you posed. Or is it the case that the chapter and the article are prospective and must apply to events and circumstances arising after the coming into force of the Constitution? Second, Article 50 of the Constitution has explicit provisions relating to fair hearing. Broadly, the article provides that any person has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court, or if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body. In the question on the applicability of Chapter 6, not a question leading to a dispute within the meaning on the Constitution, that entitles an affected person to the benefits of the requirements of natural justice and fair hearing contemplated in Article 50 of the Constitution. Third, the new constitution just like the former constitution, has defined the respective territories and constitutional competence of the various arms of Government. In particular, the competence to determine whether the Constitution has been contravened or threatened with contravention, is in terms of Article 258 of the enforcement of the Constitution vested in the courts. Article 258(2) affords the locus standi to institute court proceedings to a person making such a claim either acting on their own behalf or on behalf of other persons or generally in the public interest. Hon. Members, my analysis of the three questions that I have raised leads me to the conclusion that the matters raised regarding the applicability of Chapter 6 and its application to certain Members of this House are not matters which can properly be determined by the Speaker at the present time. These are important issues going to the scope and intendment of the Constitution, the protection afforded by the Constitution to the right of individuals and the competence of the different arms of Government. Furthermore, the questions raised are not limited to the National Assembly and its Members. They are questions about the applicability of the Constitution and its provisions to all other state officers. Hon. Members, in respect of concerns about the eligibility to be sworn in of Members who have cases pending in court, a somewhat different perspective applies. Firstly, there is no provision in the Constitution barring a state officer from being sworn in terms of Section 13 of the Six Schedule on the grounds that the state officer has a pending court case. Indeed, Section 22 of the Sixth Schedule makes it clear how pending judicial proceedings and matters are to be dealt with. That section provides that âall judicial proceedings pending before any court shall continue to be heard and shall be determined by the same court or a corresponding court established under the Constitution or as directed by the Chief Justice or the Registrar of the High court.â The Constitution, therefore, clearly recognizes that a person facing any court case continues to be entitled to have the case heard and determined one way or another. The Constitution has not taken away this right. Hon. Members, in the light of all the circumstances, it will, in my view, be a usurpation and probably the first step on a new and perilous journey towards the return of impunity for this House to arrogate to itself the function of interpreting unilaterally and without due process the meaning, scope and application of the provisions of the new Constitution, extending well beyond the operations of the Legislature. I am satisfied that the Constitution has adequate mechanisms for its own enforcement. In particular, and as I mentioned yesterday, under Article 258 of the Constitution, it is open to any Member at any time to utilize the mechanisms established by the Constitution to obtain a conclusive determination on this matter. If upon such determination, it is found that any person who was sworn into office ought not to have been sworn, or that any person holding any office is not eligible or is disqualified from holding such office, appropriate orders and reliefs will be issued and all persons including the Speaker of the National Assembly will be obliged to abide. Order, hon. Member! I will allow those at the entrance to walk in."
}