Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 158409,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/158409/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 38,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "I am most obliged! The office of the Leader of Government Business in this House has been held by various persons since Independence. At some time, the office has been held by the Vice-President, while at other times, it has been held by a Minister. The one constant thread running through is that the decision about who shall be the Leader of Government Business has always rested with the Executive. Honourable Members, a number of Members suggested that as the Speaker had “recognized” the Vice-President acting as Leader of Government Business at some point, the Speaker was, therefore, estopped from entertaining any queries on the legality or propriety of the Vice-President’s incumbency as such. This is not so. The role of the Speaker, as is well known, is to act as a neutral arbiter. The Speaker is not a protagonist in the arena that is the House. The Speaker does not raise points of order on his own motion. On 22nd April, 2009, the Speaker had before him a valid Motion. At that time, the Speaker had received only one letter from His Excellency the President, designating the Vice- President as the Leader of Government Business. When I called out the Leader of Government Business to move the Motion, I was, therefore, acting on this basis; on the basis that I had received one letter from the Government, from His Excellency the President. Indeed, the Motion was properly moved, seconded and proposed. As we speak, we have before the House a valid Motion. The view that since the Speaker had not raised issue about the legality of the situation, he is prevented from adjudicating on it when it is raised by any hon. Member is, therefore, not tenable. Similarly, the view that a Member cannot raise a point of order on the grounds that such a Member did not raise the point of order earlier is not correct. I rule that any Member can, at any time, raise a question on the constitutionality of any action or set of circumstances in this House and it is always open to the Chair to entertain and rule on the merits of such a question."
}