Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 249598,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/249598/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 254,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Wako",
    "speaker_title": "The Attorney-General",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 208,
        "legal_name": "Sylvester Wakoli Bifwoli",
        "slug": "wakoli-bifwoli"
    },
    "content": " Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, I oppose that proposal. First of all, somebody quoted Section 77 Sub-section 5 in support of this proposal. But Section 77 Sub-section 5 does not, in any way, touch on what is being proposed. It touches on the principles of ultra vires acquits and ultra vires convicts, which really does not come here. So, it is not unconstitutional. In fact, it is very constitutional because the Constitution envisages that criminal cases will be heard as reasonably quickly as they can be heard and disposed of quickly. The proposal in the amendment is actually in accordance with the Constitution. It is trying to have the person being charged and prosecuted under the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act--- Their trials to be proceeded on speedily and expeditiously to final conclusion. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, what has happened is that, invariably, in every trial under the Act--- Any trial under the Act is a major trial! All of them! I can say that there are over 60 or 70 of them. Those are the major ones. They began in 2003 and 2004. In each one of them, they have applied for stay. They have gone to the High Court for a Constitutional application. The trial cannot proceed until the Constitutional application has been heard and determined. Consequently, there has been an inordinate delay in the hearing of those cases. The public is yearning that we should try to have those cases disposed of within a reasonable time. Therefore, all we are saying is that when the trial begins under this Act, let it continue as quickly as it can go on, until the final conclusion. The person may be acquitted. He may be convicted. But if he is convicted and he appeals, then all those issues that he has raised on constitutional grounds can be heard by the Appellant Court. So, I oppose the amendment."
}