Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1549179,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1549179/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 1105,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Cherarkey",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13217,
        "legal_name": "Cherarkey K Samson",
        "slug": "cherarkey-k-samson"
    },
    "content": "In the explanatory memo under Section 5A of the Statutory Instruments Act of 2013, one of the grounds is public participation. They must show how consultation was done to ensure we do not open it up for challenge. We are not saying courts should not interpret the law, or question the process of Parliament. I remember in Speaker Mate’s case where a court said we cannot challenge a process, especially on impeachment, that we only challenge at the tail end. We are not saying courts should not challenge, but we are worried when courts want to overreach their mandate to do legislation. That is why sometimes some of us ask what the role of court is. Are they keepers of particular individuals? Why is it that courts have dealt an injunction on Competency Based Curriculum (CBC) and the university funding model?"
}