Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1010387,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1010387/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 349,
    "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, before and without contributing substantively, just procedurally, it appears to me that to do justice both to the Committee, to the law and to this House, the Committee might well stand guided to rationalise the Report first, for a number of reasons. One, it is the dangers that you pointed out. The dangers of recommendations to multiplicity of bodies. It has consequences. Two, as long as it is not stood down to be rationalised, it means even the ideas of directing independent constitutional bodies on how to do their work, within what time and what to do later, still remains. That stands as a very delicate constitutional angle. Thirdly, is the question of retroactivity. The Committee means well by trying to adopt regulations that have since come into place. For you to adopt those regulations, you must first give the opportunity to that person, what in law we would call “a show cause”. These regulations have since come into place and we are entitled to invoke them. What do you say about it? It might actually involve the Committee reinviting the person and say: “Show cause why we should not recommend your being debarred.” Lastly, procedurally, it is a question of perjury. I listened carefully to the Chairman. What he is saying is that there are people who actually committed perjury before the Committee. That is actually contempt of Parliament. We must take a very serious view of it. The Committee must decide what they want us to do with the people who lied before them. I say this because the Public Investments Committee (PIC) is a very important oversight Committee. I also sit in the PAC. When amendments come to a Report such as this, there are two folds. There are some that are well meaning to tighten the Report so that it is foolproof. But others are not well meaning. They want to kill the Report. I have always seen that. We need to give the opportunity to amendments that are well meaning to tighten the Report."
}