Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1063697,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1063697/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 64,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Kang’ata",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1826,
        "legal_name": "Irungu Kang'ata",
        "slug": "irungu-kangata"
    },
    "content": "other one before the Senate. Those Bills are different. Clause 13 of the one before the Senate makes reference to Article 13(b) (ii). The one before the National Assembly makes reference to a proposed Article 13(b)(iii). The second difference between the two Bills is that, the marginal notes of Clause 48 in reference to Article 188, is different in the Bill before the National Assembly. The third difference between the two Bills is on the Second Schedule. The one before the Senate refers to Paragraph No.1 in Article 89(7). The one before National Assembly refers to Article 87(7) in its paragraph No.1. Those are not simple typographical errors, particularly the one that refers to Article 89(7). This is because we all know that one of the most contentious debates in this Bill is on the proposal to interfere with the powers of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC). The error in Article 89(7) clearly touched on Article 89, which refers to powers of IEBC. I wonder if we are to endorse, which one will go to the referendum. Remember majority of County Assemblies – more than 30 – passed the erroneous Bill, the one before the Senate. The one that is IEBC certified is the one that was passed by majority County Assemblies. Therefore, one can currently argue that this Bill does not meet the Constitutional requirement as provide in Article 257---"
}