Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1021113,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1021113/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 125,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "If anything, it can only enrich the Bill. It cannot take it away. Do an addendum as another report to this. Therefore, with a lot of caution, I will direct that the Clerk will sit with the Chair of the Committee, agree on when another advertisement is going to be placed in two local dailies of national circulation, inviting Kenyans and anybody who has any views. They must be people with views, not supporters of people who may have views. To meet and agree on the dates that it will be advertised and the Committee sets aside three days to take views. It may not change whatever may be in the Report. Nothing prevents the Committee from saying: “Having listened to 1,001 stakeholders, we find nothing useful to add to the previous report.” That will still be a report. You will be saying you stand by your original report. This way, nobody will arise to accuse the Committee that they were not given adequate time to be heard. As the Chairman pointed out correctly, the Committee also has other pressing business that they are considering, including Members’ Questions, Statements, Petitions and others. So, I will direct that we will stay placing this business before the House pending any further hearings and any other reports in addition to this, so that everybody feels satisfied. This is because the route that we may be going is similar to that, that we went on the Merchant Shipping Act. Fortunately for me, I get those judgements and I read. Here in the House, I have heard many of you asking how much time is adequate time. The people in the Judiciary have a way of determining that if you sat for six days, that was not adequate like in that instance. The Committee sat for six days, but the court still said that was not adequate. So, even as we criticize, we must also be alive to some of those decisions. We are going to be alive to what the Court of Appeal is going to say. If it agrees with the High Court, that should make you understand even as the Hon. Wamalwa is pursuing his Public Participation Bill, you should take into account what the courts are saying. They will make pronouncements, but they will not make the law. It is you to make the law. That is your mandate under Article 94. So, they can disagree with you, but they will not tell you how it should look like. It is up to you to go and imagine that it should look like this. Maybe, it should be seven or ten days. We do not know whether the Court of Appeal is going to agree with the High Court but, to the extent that up to now an Act which we can remember very well has been annulled on the basis that there was not sufficient public participation… Because you remember it touched on similar matters."
}