Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1135808,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1135808/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 59,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mwea, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. George Gitonga",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13441,
        "legal_name": "Josphat Kabinga Wachira",
        "slug": "josphat-kabinga-wachira-2"
    },
    "content": " Yes, it depends on how many points I have. Thank you, Hon. Deputy Speaker. I have looked at the Political Parties (Amendment) Bill of 2021 and I speak first and foremost as a Member of Parliament representing Tharaka Constituency, a Member of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee and also as a lawyer. I have particularly a problem with Clause 2, which seeks to amend Section 2 of the Political Parties Act, which in essence introduces matters that are not constitutional. The Political Parties Act is basically founded on Article 260 of the Constitution, which defines a political party by making reference to Chapter 7, Part III. When you look at what a political party is in the Constitution, it does not in any way contemplate formation of any other thing not referred as a political party to be a political party. What we have is a definition that is introduced in Clause 2(b). Now, a political party includes a coalition political party. If we read the Constitution, Article 260 as read with Chapter 7 Part III, there is no contemplation as ejusdemgeneris even if we construe it in whichever way that we would introduce an entity that is not contemplated by the Constitution. What this particular clause is doing is to introduce an entity that requires to be defined by the Constitution. Failing to do so means that what we are just about to debate is unconstitutional. This particular section of the clause is introducing an entity that requires to be defined by the Constitution, and failing to do so means that what we are just about to debate is unconstitutional."
}