Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1040156,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1040156/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 1220,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Kang’ata",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1826,
        "legal_name": "Irungu Kang'ata",
        "slug": "irungu-kangata"
    },
    "content": "Madam Deputy Speaker, I will raise two issues, the first being a procedural one. I think once an application has been made by a certain party, there ought to be a response as has happened. The lawyer representing the Governor has done a response and then finally the lawyer who originally made that application should be given the final right of reply. Consider that issue procedurally. On the substantive application, I urge you to look at the prejudice test. What would be the prejudice that will be suffered either by this House or by the lawyers representing His Excellency the Governor if the approbation is allowed? We need to consider whether it is possible for the Senate to provide facilities outside this House, for instance, the microphone or the evidence is going to be recorded? If that is possible maybe you can consider that application positively. Secondly, shall we be able to cross-examine, re-examine and ask questions, notwithstanding that the witness will be away? Thirdly, we need to consider whether that witness is available as of now or the application is being made for that person to appear later. If we are able to satisfy that set of criteria, it may be important because the key consideration is getting evidence. As long as no prejudice will be suffered by the other party, maybe that application is meritorious. I have heard my eminent professor mention something concerning a Kenya"
}