GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1109891/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1109891,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1109891/?format=api",
"text_counter": 483,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Funyula, ODM",
"speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Wilberforce Oundo",
"speaker": {
"id": 13331,
"legal_name": "Wilberforce Ojiambo Oundo",
"slug": "wilberforce-ojiambo-oundo-2"
},
"content": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady. As the Chair continues to consult, let me admit that I sat in the winnowing process. This was our thinking and the Member for Tinderet was very clear. The general practice in this country is that any tribunal belongs to the JSC. Here we are hostages of our own procedures. I totally agree with my colleague that if we delete this particular clause and the new clause we are proposing does not go through, what happens? The flip side is this: If we leave it the way it is and then we pass the new clause, what will be the import of such kind of an approach? Here is a leap of faith. We delete and hope and pray that we pass the new clause. In the event that we do not pass it, there is a provision of re-committal. The reason is that the tribunal is so critical to the sugar industry. The treatment given to it in the parent Bill in Clause 31 is so shallow, narrow and against the common practice now. It does not serve the purpose it was intended to serve. That is why the wisdom of the winnowing team was to expand it and have a complete clause for it. So, we can deal with all matters requiring to be dealt with under this issue in dispute resolution, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), and the rest of the things. I urge my colleagues to agree as we are in a conundrum because of the procedure. But let us take a leap of faith. Let us delete, accept the amendment by the Committee and proceed to pass them as contained in the new clause that has been introduced. I humbly submit."
}