Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 971075,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/971075/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 165,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13465,
        "legal_name": "Paul Otiende Amollo",
        "slug": "paul-otiende-amollo"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Speaker, I support the Report to the extent that it makes a very important observation. It observes that the Supreme Court was never meant as an appellate court for all matters. That point needs to be emphasised thoroughly. With tremendous respect to the Supreme Court, we have witnessed a situation where the Court liberally interpreted its jurisdiction, opened the floodgates and now all the cases were flooding to the court. It then became necessary for them to re-interpret that jurisdiction in an effort to restrict those who access its doors. They have sought to do that by trying to ensure that everyone who appears before them addresses the question of their jurisdiction. It addresses the question: in what way and to what extent are your rights under the Constitution threatened? Using that yardstick, some cases are admitted while some are not. A careful analysis of the jurisprudence suggests that it is almost a discretionary jurisprudence that is as long as the chancellor’s foot. Some succeed while some fail in circumstances that are almost similar. I suggest and I agree with the Committee that unless the Supreme Court re-interprets its jurisdiction properly, we may have to do that in terms of legislation. This Report covers another interesting area of the issue of delayed cases. It must be acknowledged that there is serious delay in cases. What the Report suggests which I am not prepared to accede to as yet is that we should go ahead and fix time limits within which certain cases must be determined. That is a very heavy matter. As necessary as it is, it is a very heavy and even potentially dangerous matter. I would urge that before we get there, we should urge the Judiciary to take the first step in terms of self-regulations. So that the Judiciary would by way of regulations or directions by the CJ, and this was done before, indicate that in corruption cases, if it is at the Magistrates’ Court, we expect they will be ready within this period and if they are ready, the cases should have been determined as they have also done with certain election matters and that they would direct given the reality of the circumstance. That direction would be softer. If you put those time limits in the area of legislation, part of it would defeat justice because once you hit that time limit, there is discontinuity either to the advantage or disadvantage of the people who went to court. That matter must be tied to the last point which I want to make. Part of the reason for the delay is insufficient numbers of judicial officers. We are aware that there are at least 41 judges who ought to have been appointed to the Court of Appeal by now. The President has not done so. As a House, we need to speak with a very loud voice on this that where the JSC has made recommendations for appointment of judges, those judges should be appointed forthwith without delay. We can then commence the process of removal of any judge who was improperly appointed."
}