Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1223540,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1223540/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 57,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Senators, I now turn to the second question; which is the question of the options available to the Speaker where the proposed changes in the political leadership in the Senate are contested by an aggrieved political party, Senator or Senators. As stated by Speaker Lusaka in the Sen. Wetangula case- “It cannot be gainsaid that political parties are recognized under Article 91 of the Constitution and are subject to the requirements there under. Political parties are also subject to legislations made, pursuant to Article 92 of the Constitution. In the context of the Senate, political parties have the opportunity to present themselves for recognition in the Senate, either as single political parties or as alliance or coalitions of parties operating under coalition agreements, deposited with the Registrar of Political Parties. It is their prerogative and choice. However, when they make that choice, they must abide by the consequences of that choice. Coalitions enjoy the benefit of being a coalition, such as enhanced numbers, resulting therefrom but must similarly put up with the language that comes up with the coalition status such as decision making required under standing Order No.23.” The meaning of this is that political parties cannot be wild creatures, roaming in the national landscape without reference to the Constitution. Similarly, it is not open to their constituent entities to approbate and reprobate in representing themselves to the Senate. The Senate recognizes single parties presenting themselves for recognition as parliamentary parties or a number of parties presenting themselves to the Senate as a coalition enjoying parliamentary party status. The answer to the second question, therefore, is that, it is not open to the Speaker to entertain and find valid the correspondence of a coalition on the status of its leadership and at the same time accept a contrary position on the same matter from constituent entities or individuals of the same coalition."
}