Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1248789,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1248789/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 1523,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Consequently, courts have only exercised their supervisory jurisdiction to review the quasi- judicial and administrative functions of Parliament when either vetting or considering petitions for removal of persons from office. However, courts have always refrained from interfering with the law-making powers of Parliament. They have consistently limited themselves to reviewing the content of Bills after their enactment into law. Indeed, any interference of the court in consideration of a Bill that is actively before the Legislature would constitute a striking departure from established constitutional precedent and practice both in the Commonwealth and the Congressional systems. This is a matter in which both the court itself and my predecessors have ruled on. In South Africa, the court has held as much in the celebrated case of Doctors for Life International vs The Speaker of the National Assembly and Others CCT 12 of 2006 ZACC 11. In declining to interfere in the consideration of a Bill, the court held that the South African constitutional scheme contemplates that challenges to the constitutional validity of a Bill passed by Parliament must await the completion of the legislative process."
}