Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1418661,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1418661/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 349,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Speaker. The proposal by Hon. Alice Ng’ang’a is an important one. It looks timely but it might be dangerous. It might be so because it pre-empts a more fundamental issue that we, as the two Houses of Parliament, are called upon to deal with, that is, the NADCO Report, which this House and the Senate adopted. The Speaker committed it to the joint Departmental Committees on Justice and Legal Affairs, co-chaired by Hon. George Murugara. The Joint Committee had its first sitting already. Without pre-empting anything, since I am not the Chairperson, I am aware that we are resuming meetings tomorrow and had agreed to meet weekly. A very fundamental proposal has been made in the NADCO Report: To change the period contemplated by the Constitution from between eight and twelve years and to extend it to 15 years. The urgency of such a consideration ceases depending on how that discussion is held. It is then postponed and it gives enough time for everyone to think through this matter. To adopt such a proposal right now undermines those proposals in the NADCO Report. This will finally end up in some level of confusion. To that extent, this proposal is premature. Secondly, a similar proposal is in the face of the Constitution. We found it necessary to protect the constituencies initially from the first review, that is, in Schedule 6(27) of the current Constitution. The idea of interfering with any of those constituencies was foregone when the first review was undertaken. I believe it was in the year 2012. Therefore, there was no interference. Such provisions are usually contained in transitional parts of the Constitution; not in the substantive part of a Constitution because, then, you are entrenching something for posterity. You might need to deal with it differently. To that extent, in so far as the idea to amend Article 89 Constitution on its very face is concerned, it becomes dangerous. In its stead, we should even consider an extension of Schedule 6(27) in the event that it is what we wanted to deal with."
}