Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 20126,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/20126/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 479,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Kimunya",
    "speaker_title": "The Minister for Transport",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 174,
        "legal_name": "Amos Muhinga Kimunya",
        "slug": "amos-kimunya"
    },
    "content": " Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am on a point of order. The matter that is being raised is a selective interpretation of the Constitution. Section 221(4) talks about what happens before the National Assembly considers the estimates. It states that a committee of the Assembly shall discuss and review and make recommendations to the Assembly. Section 221(5) obligates the Committee to seek representations from the public. However, Section 221(6) is a totally different matter and it states that when the estimates of national Government expenditure and estimates of the expenditure for the Judiciary and Parliament have been approved by the National Assembly, they shall be included in an Appropriation Bill, which shall be introduced into the National Assembly to authorize the withdrawal of expenditure. This is when the estimates have been approved by the National Assembly. The approval was given when the Motion on all the Votes was passed last week. Hon. Members were here and may have voted. I remember Mr. Mbadi voting against the Motion by shouting very loudly to proclaim he was declining to give that matter the approval that it required. So, he was here and he participated in the approval process. It may not have gone his way and we cannot come back and try to misinterpret the Constitution, which we have all sworn to defend, basically to achieve personal objectives. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Speaker ruled on this matter and I am not even sure why hon. Members are challenging the ruling that was given by the Speaker. I think they are going through a roundabout way by saying that we cannot move on now when the matter was very clearly articulated. The inclusion of the Appropriation Bill on the Order Paper is confirmation that the Speaker was himself satisfied that this matter does not breach the Constitution. As you rule on this matter, I would like you to find that this is part of filibustering to play to the galleries and introduce the issues of teachers; a matter which could not be achieved at the Committee level and in all the previous interactions."
}