Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1549595,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1549595/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 311,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Okiya Omtatah",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "introducing debate in this House? As far as I am concerned, there is no request to Parliament to extend time. Secondly, this House is presided over by the Speaker. Similarly, the other House is presided over by the Speaker; the two Houses of Parliament. I agree with those who have said that where Parliament is supposed to be asked to do anything, the two Speakers have to be addressed. It is not correct that the Clerk is addressed on behalf of the Speaker. There are letters which go to the Clerk, which are merely for administrative work or for Petitions. However, to request a special favour from Parliament, you have to move the Speakers. So, as far as we are concerned, we have not been moved to grant any extension of time. Madam Temporary Speaker, I have looked through the Motion and I am just seeing a recitation of nothing. There are a lot of words here, but they say nothing. Not a single reason has been given as to why we should extend the time of the Selection Panel. All I can see written down here are words like “Noting that,” “Further noting that,” “Conscious of,” “Further conscious,” “Now therefore---”. There is no reason given why they want to extend time. Secondly, I have seen the letter that was written to the Hon. Wetangula. It expressly asks for 30 days. Can we debate in the absence of these people who requested for 30 days and reduce that to 14 days as the National Assembly has done? Would it not be proper for them to justify why they needed 30 days and not 31 days? In my opinion, we should approach this issue with the seriousness it deserves. First of all, the law allows this House to extend time, which means there was a recognition that there would come an occasion when time would have to be extended. However, the person or the entity seeking to extend time, must give us reasons why they need the time extended. Our decision must be on merit. So, in the absence of an application to this House, through our Speaker, and in the unbelievable decision by the National Assembly to assume that it knows that 14 days would be enough and not 30 days, without hearing the other party, and the failure for the other party to give any reasons why they want an extension of time, this being a House of records, I would not like to be associated with this kind of disregard for due process, law and detail. Therefore, I oppose the Motion. Thank you, Madam Temporary Speaker."
}