Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1028690,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1028690/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 355,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kangundo, Muungano",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Fabian Muli",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13360,
        "legal_name": "Fabian Kyule Muli",
        "slug": "fabian-kyule-muli-2"
    },
    "content": "I congratulate this House for having shown a proper progressive test in articulating Article 100, by bringing policies on the gender rule. In the statement from the advisory from the Chief Justice, he did not consider Article 27(8) which talks about two-thirds gender rule on the political organs, departments and ministries. My question which comes to bring a conflict of the law is, if today you say that this House needs to have two-thirds gender rule, are you saying that the voters who elected us to this House did not know what they were doing as they elected us? The other question is, historically we have known that the boy child and girl child have been given the same opportunity, you want to tell the generation of today that it is serving the historical injustice in terms of implementation of activities, so that the boy child of today should not go to school to learn politics or medicine? Does it mean that that judgment from our Chief Justice means that you cut the growth of the boy child to grow the girl child? The Chief Justice should have understood the progressive test which has been done by this House. We support anything given to our sisters, daughters, and our mothers. We support anything to improve the livelihood or anything for women. However, this judgment came like a law being implemented on the spot. It is a norm. We are in a culture where things have to grow progressively. I checked many laws that have come to this House. They give a good hand in terms of our women. It has also taken care of youth giving them opportunities. Currently, we have the NGAAF and many other opportunities for women. So, Article 27(8) needs to be revisited. The court needs to revisit that Article and understand that it cannot be 100 per cent implemented. You cannot wake up today and say that the House must be two-thirds gender compliant. The other argument which I support this Sessional Paper for is that the policy is analysing and giving analytical state where we can follow and attain the development of a girl child. Even if you say that you give a human being a certain environment to grow by himself, he cannot. A The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}