Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1052169,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1052169/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 170,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Ruaraka, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. T.J. Kajwang’",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2712,
        "legal_name": "Tom Joseph Kajwang'",
        "slug": "kajwang-tom-joseph-francis"
    },
    "content": " Hon. Deputy Speaker, allow me to support you in the manner in which you have proceeded on this point of order raised by Hon. Otiende. It is clear that Hon. Otiende has a constitutional point in the sense that these legislations seem to be giving Parliament jurisdictions to interfere with an alienable property which is private. That is unconstitutional because what is private property may not be interfered with unless provisions of the Constitution have been applied. In the benefit of the spirit that the promoter has spoken, we do not need to kill it at this stage. This is how legislation is done. Sometimes, legislation could be badly done at the raw stage, but is processed and properly done at the Committee of the whole House stage. For example, someone can rightly come with an amendment to delete Section 16, for example. That does not make us leave or avoid discussing this Bill. It would only lead to a further amendment by deleting Section 15. However, you do not even have to delete Section 16 if you read it properly. The problem is that the promoter of the Bill has used terms which are not known in conveyance circles. For example, this thing called “land set aside”, we should have called it “surrender”. That way, we would have understood what we are talking about. However, we have given it a layman’s term and called it “where land is set aside” is part of land to be subdivided. Assuming, we say that “where the surrender”, that surrender has already been identified although it is within the private property. The surrender itself is definite. So, where it is definite, we are now not talking about the private owners at all. You are simply talking about the surrender which is within the estate of the private people. Probably and to be fair to the promoter of the Bill, we may want to think through it, and 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."
}