Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 193815,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/193815/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 234,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Mbadi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 110,
        "legal_name": "John Mbadi Ng'ong'o",
        "slug": "john-mbadi"
    },
    "content": "Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. I wish to thank the Assistant Minister for giving the Ministerial Statement and giving a detailed account as to why there were two sets of prospectuses that were issued on 14th and 28th March, 2008. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, whereas the Assistant Minister insists that there was no material difference in the two prospectuses issued on the two dates, I wish to state that the first prospectus issued on the 14th of March, 2008 did not have the signature of the Board of Directors and the external auditors who, in my view, are prioritus corpus . Also, it did not have the notes to the accounts. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the main reason for having the prospectus is to give information to the investing public about the company in question. It is supposed to detail the history of the company, the nature of business it is conducting and the attendant business risks associated with it. That is why it is extremely necessary to have financial statements attached to the accounts. If the 1102 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES June 10, 2008 financial statements that are attached to the accounts give misleading information, then the essence of the prospectus is defeated. That is why I do not understand! If there was no difference, then what was the need of issuing another prospectus on 28th March, 2008? Whatever the intention was, can that intention come out clearly? Could we be told that the main reason was \"X\", \"Y\" or \"Z\"!"
}