Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 204009,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/204009/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 357,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Muite",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 235,
        "legal_name": "Paul Kibugi Muite",
        "slug": "paul-muite"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, first and foremost, I had the privilege of having lunch, at the same table, with hon. Muturi. Whatever he may have discussed earlier, hon. Muturi, today at lunch hour, was very clear in his mind that the amendment he moved is not unconstitutional. He did not even wish to move for recommittal or reconsideration. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, once an amendment is on the Floor of this House, it is the property of the House. A little background is in order. In the Inter-Parties Parliamentary Group (IPPG) of 1997, when that was being negotiated, the Democratic Party (DP) was apprehensive that the then President would poach its Members and appoint them to the Cabinet. That is why, in those negotiations, they moved an amendment to Section 16. If you look at the marginal note, you will see \"1997\". The amendment was:- \"Subject to the provisions of any written law\" Those words were put in 1997. They then went and amended the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act to require the concurrence of a political party before its Members could be appointed into Government. That is the basis on which KANU went to court. For some reason, the Chief Justice never set up a Bench to hear that case. I am not going into the merits. So, it is quite clear that we cannot just read Section 40 alone. You read it together with Section 15 and together with the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act. The idea was to stop poaching and to strengthen Parliamentary multiparty democracy."
}