Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1138757,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1138757/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 1165,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "South Mugirango, KNC",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Silvanus Onyiego",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1417,
        "legal_name": "Silvanus Osoro Onyiego",
        "slug": "silvanus-osoro-onyiego"
    },
    "content": " Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, I beg to move: THAT, the Bill be amended by deleting Clause 23. The Bill proposes to limit the chains of litigation as far as coalition parties’ dispute is concerned. That, in the event there arises a dispute between the members of a coalition party, the tribunal shall not hear and determine disputes between them. What will take effect will be their coalition agreement. What that means is that the dominant party will dominate the smaller parties in decision making. Worse still is that in the event they do not agree, the section directs that the dispute goes directly to the High Court unlike what happens to the political parties where upon rising of a dispute within the members, there is an internal mechanism and then the tribunal. In case you need to appeal, you go to a higher court. As it is in the proposed Bill, in case of a dispute, if they do not agree within the coalition agreement, they go straight to the High Court and the appeal stops at the Court of Appeal. Ideally, it means the chains of litigation are limited. This really affects the minority in coalitions where the dominant party takes effect."
}