Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 944110,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/944110/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 82,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "The Deputy Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "However, hon. Senators, as I move towards the conclusion, I would like us to look at Standing Order 98 with a little detail, and I will allow a few observations and comments, because we have the best brains this country can ever have, both legal and non-legal. We have all the experience that we require in this House. I will allow a bit of that experience, because what we are trying to do is to create law which will be relied on, in posterity. If you look at Standing Order 98, which Sen. Mwaruma and Sen. M. Kajwang’ had tried to use unsuccessfully, they did not succeed because they did not read the Standing Order. I think it was an afterthought or something like that. Standing Order No. 98 states:- “(1) Subject to paragraph (5), no Senator shall refer to any particular matter which is sub judice or which by the operation of any written law, is secret.” I can summarize the other paragraphs under that Standing Order. They tell you how to make a case for sub judice. You must tell us that, “This is the evidence; there is a criminal or civil matter, and these are the pleadings; it is before this court.” You must then also tell us whether the determination of that matter or rather the involvement of the Senate in deliberating on that matter may have an implication on the determination of that matter. All those conditions ought to be met, but they were never met when they were adduced on Tuesday. As I turn to paragraph 5, which is the last paragraph in that Standing Order, I also want to say that Standing Order 98 has nothing to do with court injunctions. It has zero relevance to court injunctions. It is a Parliamentary Standing Order, where Parliament, on its own Motion – as the lawyer says suo motu; on its own motion – decides in deference and respect to other arms of Government, looks at a matter, evaluates the facts and assesses that matter and says, “The way we look at this matter, we can hold deliberations on it, allow the courts to finish this process and later on we can discuss it again.” My point is that the sub judice rule is suo motu ; it is on volition and discretion of Parliament. It has nothing related to court injunctions. 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."
}