Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1092536,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1092536/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 293,
    "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": "we should to be able to explain to Members where we are. However, I said that today, on behalf of the Committee, we will set a few things straight so that we allow this Bill to mature to a Third Reading. This is a very good Bill in respect of the people that it is concerned. You know as I do, if you were a student in those days, you would not get your Trust aggregates in the faculty of law, if you did not attempt a question on Waqf, because very few people understood or could even pronounce what Waqf is all about. So, it was only the studious students that were able to understand what Waqf was all about. Imagine that this is amending or completely repealing sections of Wakf Act, which was an Act of 30 of 1951, which came by virtue of Legal Notice No. 142 of 1963 in effective date of 1951. Let me just show you how ridiculous this colonial law was, and why members of the Islamic faith had to bear with a very old colonial and retrogressive Bill. The definition, for example, of Waqf in the legislation that we intend to repeal reads as follows: “A Muslim means an Arab, a member of the Twelve Tribes, a Baluchi, a Somali, or a Comoro Islander, a Malagasy, or a native of Africa of the Muslim faith.” Imagine this is a legislation that is existing describing members of the Islamic faith. How ridiculous and how retrogressive must Muslims be feeling to deal with such legislations that are unrepealed!"
}