Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1060562,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1060562/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 150,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kathiani, WDM-K",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Robert Mbui",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1750,
        "legal_name": "Robert Mbui",
        "slug": "robert-mbui"
    },
    "content": " Hon. Deputy Speaker, because I was addressing you, I see the fear and I will correct myself going forward. Hon. Deputy Speaker, there is also the definition where they say 'where the deceased was a woman, her husband, if he was being maintained by her immediately prior to the date of her death”. This is furthermore very ambiguous because apparently it means when people want to prove that they were being maintained, I hear that they normally take photographs of maybe them having a cup of tea together, and sitting on a chair next to each other. That means even a person who was a worker can claim to have been maintained and claim ownership and that they should actually be maintained. I agree that the proposals Hon. Kaluma has brought are very important. First, he says 'the dependent should be - and this is what he defines it - the spouse and children of the deceased, whether or not maintained by the deceased immediately prior to his death”. I think that makes sense because ideally the people who should inherit do not necessarily have to have been maintained at the time that person was alive. What happens is that you could have grown up children who are independent and doing their own things. So, if you say you can only inherit because you are being maintained, then that means you disenfranchise those ones. I think this is a very intelligent proposal that the dependent be defined properly as spouse or children, whether they are maintained or not. Hon. Deputy Speaker, the only part I am uncomfortable with is this part where he has picked from the old law. It says that, a dependent is also such as the deceased's parents, step parents, grandparents, grand children, step children, children whom the deceased had taken into his family as his own, brothers, sisters, half-brothers and half-sisters, as were being maintained by the deceased immediately prior to his death. I find this extremely wide. It is important that we consider it and we propose to amend it. If it is not the spouse or the children… That is because sometimes people could die in an accident and the whole family is wiped out. In case those are not the immediate dependents, then we must state who is next so that there is no fight. The next person would possibly be the parents and if not, the siblings, but it has to be organized in such a way that 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."
}