GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1495864/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1495864,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1495864/?format=api",
"text_counter": 249,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mathare, ODM",
"speaker_title": "Hon. Anthony Oluoch",
"speaker": null,
"content": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Chairlady. I support this amendment. However, I have a drafting issue which I would like to bring to the attention of the Chair. The 24 months is appropriate, but I am thinking in terms of legal drafting. I have a concern about how legal terms and phrases such as “non-compliance of something” have been put in negative. It should be re-worded to say: “Those who will not have complied within a certain number of months will either be removed from the role”, or read: “All eligible community workers will have undertaken the courses under the Second Schedule within 24 months of the enactment of this Bill.” The import of the way it is drafted is having 24 months after the enactment of this Act. Thereafter, you are now saying they are eligible. I am not sure but something is lacking. Maybe, the people in legal can weigh in on this to advise whether the drafting is legally neat. I support the amendment itself."
}