GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/626498/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 626498,
    "url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/626498/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 132,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Kanyua",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 981,
        "legal_name": "Priscilla Nyokabi Kanyua",
        "slug": "priscilla-nyokabi-kanyua"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman. After voting, the proposals remaining to be considered for Hon. Okoth was Clause (k), which he has properly prosecuted. I want to bring to his attention the difficulty in a clause like this. The Public Benefits Organisations that offer legal aid do not have a joint forum at all. They would have networking sessions among themselves, but not a joint forum identified by law and not one that the law can work with. Let me speak as somebody with experience because I was the Executive Director at Kituo Cha Sheria, which is a legal aid organization. In the National Legal Aid and Awareness Programme (NALEAP) which was the precursor to this Bill, we had a similar clause that three persons would be nominated by a joint forum. For the three years that the programme ran, we were never able to get this joint forum to nominate three persons. We have then thought that we need to propose a further amendment to his amendment, that in paragraph (k), we have one person elected by a joint forum of Public Benefit Organisations offering legal aid to the public including women, youth and children. That they elect the person as opposed to nominating a person. They should only elect one person among themselves, so that the Attorney-General or the relevant office would call them into a forum and they would elect one among themselves to represent them on the board. The nomination of three in an unregulated environment would be a bit difficult. So, I will probably be moving the amendment. On Sub-clause (4), we do not oppose it."
}