Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1157943,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1157943/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 323,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Homa Bay Town, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Peter Kaluma",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1565,
        "legal_name": "George Peter Opondo Kaluma",
        "slug": "george-peter-opondo-kaluma"
    },
    "content": "In the same provision we are being told that various courts had come up with some judgements. We do not sit as Parliament to legislate court decisions. Their judgements are already in place! We cannot be sitting as a Parliament to say: in Maina Kiai, this-and-that was said and put in law. There is the realm of law called judgement-law. In terms of electoral processes, those judgements we say are good form part of the laws in terms of case judgement-law. We cannot say that we are sieving judgement and picking out phrases to legislate so that we are in conformity with some court. So, no major gap is being shown to us in that regard. We are being told of this- and-that judgment. We are even being told that after the High Court, in some matter, deleted some provisions of the law, those provisions are still available for deletion in the Bill. We are deleting provisions which were annulled by the court! When a law is annulled, it ceases to exist. There is no further work required of Parliament in terms of cleansing it. In law, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, and you are a better lawyer on governance and administrative law than myself, when something is said to be null and void, it is as good as not being in existence. It never falls backs on this Parliament that the court said Section 39(1)(b) is null and void, delete, or Section 39(1)(d) is null and void, delete. We cannot be deleting what is already deleted. It has already been annulled by the courts. There is no need there."
}