Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 944111,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/944111/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 83,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "The Deputy Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Secondly, similarly, the Judiciary sometimes – and I have the authority of Senior Counsel, Sen. Orengo and other lawyers in the House – when Parliament is passing legislation, they also normally withhold making any determinations until the process is over. In the same spirit of saying if an arm of Government is dealing with the matter, allow the processes to continue and then the other arm can review. In our case, the Judiciary can review a decision of Parliament. Hon. Colleagues, it is in this connection on the specific matter of impeachment, that I want to determine that courts cannot injunct Parliament. They cannot and should not. I will not be that Speaker who supervises or overseas a process where Parliament is paralyzed by another arm of Government. That would be like suicide, and I am not a suicide bomber. I also want to say that the Supreme Court, with tremendous respect to all the courts, has already given guidance on this jurisprudence and philosophy in the Wambora cases. I am, therefore, a bit concerned that, as much as we respect court decisions, we can disagree with them. I am a bit concerned when I see other courts not taking cue from the very explicit guidance given by Supreme Court in the Wambora cases, where the Supreme Court said that on matters impeachment, courts should be reluctant to intervene; they should allow the process to go through the Senate and, thereafter, they can get seized of that matter."
}