Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1097592,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1097592/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 71,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "How were we to ensure that not more than two-thirds of either gender are represented here as required in Article 27(6) and (8) of the Constitution? How were we also to ensure that the provisions of Article 81 on the electoral system ensuring that no more than two-thirds of either gender is represented in any appointive and elective office, notwithstanding the efforts that Hon. Duale made, both in the 12th and the 11th Parliaments, and the entire House, indeed, to try and actualise those provisions? Article 27 is under the Bill of Rights. How can the same Judiciary then claim that Parliament has failed without explaining what it is we were supposed to have done? Is it Parliament that is responsible for the electoral system under Article 81 of the Constitution? It is not Parliament. Parliament is not the electoral system. So, how can somebody even proceed to advice on dissolution of Parliament on a matter that does not belong to Parliament? There are certain other issues that have not been clarified. I believe it is a matter that is still quite murky and have not been quite clarified. What is the basic structure? If they wanted to be direct, they should have said the matters provided under Article 255, which require popular initiative. They should then have gone ahead to fault the method that was used and say it should not happen that way. You do not just say that the basic structure doctrine applies. If you read the Constitution, it is all the matters referred to in Article 255, including the term of the President, the functions of Parliament, independence of the Judiciary, Chapter 4, and national values under Article 10 that are specified. Nothing should have stopped them from going further to indicate what they were talking about, and then go ahead and fault the method used to try and get that Bill through. It is a matter that requires a lot of reflection. Maybe, we have not heard the last of it. There is the other matter, which is before the courts, because the Chief Justice advised the President to dissolve Parliament for having not implemented the two-thirds gender principle, which is under Chapter 4 of the Constitution. If we cannot touch that Chapter, how can we be blamed? I think people should not eat their cakes and still have bits of it. Leader of the Majority Party, I can see you want to say something."
}