Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1122367,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1122367/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 184,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "property as the subject of the proposed legislation. The Bill has no single provision dealing with the Hajj, not even a remote mention of pilgrimage. You may, therefore, agree with me that the proposed amendment by the Committee to Clause 2 and new paragraphs (gc) and (gd) of Clause 8 by the Committee and Hon. Abdullswamad Nassir, relating to the subject of Muslim Hajj are contrary to the provisions Standing Order No.133(5), as they deal with a different subject matter and propose to unreasonably and unduly expand the subject of the Bill. At this stage, the question that the Speaker has to address is, if the proposed amendments deal with a different subject matter, should they be admitted for consideration and thereafter, a vote by the House? Hon. Members, it is worth noting that if the impugned proposed amendments were to be admitted for consideration, the House would undoubtedly offend the provisions of Article 118 of the Constitution on the question of public participation. These are new matters for which the general public was never invited to have a chance to interact with and give their views on. Hon. Members, whereas I commend the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for discharging their mandate in consideration of the Waqf Bill culminating in their report to the House and a schedule of proposed amendments, I find that the proposed amendment to Clause 2 proposing to define the word “Hajj” and the proposed new paragraphs (gc) and (gd) under Clause 8 proposing to expand the conventional role of a Waqf Commission beyond the administration of Waqf property and trusteeship are contrary to the provisions of Article 118 of the Constitution with regard to public participation, and Standing Order No.133(5) and hence shall not be considered at the Committee of the Whole House. The rest of the amendments proposed by the Committee to the Bill are admissible for consideration by the Committee of the whole House as well as the other amendments proposed by the other Members. The House is accordingly guided. I thank you."
}