GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/115369/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 115369,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/115369/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 360,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "December 10, 2009 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 4540 Mr. Abdikadir",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, because the punishment is in Clause 17, clause 13 just creates the offence. I have no problem with Clause 13 and we have already moved away from Clause 13. I am interested in the punishment and it is indicated in Clause 17(2). If the Minister agrees- and this is when we can move- can we then say that Clause 17(2) is amended by removing Clause 13 (3) and then a new Clause 17(2) (c) is indicated?: The clause will read: With respect to sub-clause (13) (3): “A person who contravenes the provisions of section 13 (3), shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine which shall be not more than ten percent of the amount of the monetary instruments involved in the offence?”"
}