HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 221014,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/221014/?format=api",
"text_counter": 270,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Wetangula",
"speaker_title": "The Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs",
"speaker": {
"id": 210,
"legal_name": "Moses Masika Wetangula",
"slug": "moses-wetangula"
},
"content": " Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am happy that the Minister appreciates these kind of errors in a Bill that is going to be law. It will be very difficult to deal with it in this state. Clause 19(h) on page 347 is just something that is not legally neat. It states: \"Subject to the provisions of any written law condone the late filing.\" You do not condone; you allow or permit the late filing of documents. It is not a condonation. A condonation means that you are condoning something that is illegal. So, I suggest that, that be changed to say that you can allow the late filing of documents. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is established a Rules Board for the National Labour Court under Clause 20. Again, this, in many jurisdictions and even at the High Court, is normally ad hoc . When rules are to be made, the Chief Justice, or in this case the head judge, sets up an ad hoc committee that formulates rules and their work is finished. It cannot be a permanent institution like this Bill is appearing to establish. This is because in an institution such as the court, you do not make rules everyday. Once you make rules, you go on with them for a period of, say, five years. Then when you need to review them, you set up another ad hoc committee that can formulate, evaluate and make the rules better for functioning. I hope the Minister will look into that matter too. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, Clause 21(3) is an infringement on the freedom of information that we are talking about. This is a court with quasi, if not judicial powers. You cannot state: \"No comment shall be published in respect of the proceedings or the evidence before an award, judgement or order has been delivered on a matter at issue\". You know very well that in this country, when you go to court, the moment you file your pleadings, the Press picks them. When you go to present your case, the Press is there. When there is judgement, the Press is also there. It is not possible to say that the Press cannot cover proceedings before this Court. It is simply against the grain of events in this country. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is when you create room for speculation and so on and so forth. I would like to urge the Minister to delete Clause 21(3), so that freedom of information can flow. If I have a dispute and I go to the National Labour Court, it is not a secret that I have a dispute. Let everybody know, so that either those who have similar disputes can benefit from it and also go and seek redress, or whatever the case, the public can get to know. So, if the Minister can take that, I will be very happy."
}