Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 270396,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/270396/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 283,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Dr. Nuh",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 114,
        "legal_name": "Nuh Nassir Abdi",
        "slug": "nuh-abdi"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want to thank you for, at least, taking up this matter and saying that you will give a ruling next Wednesday. But as you prepare your ruling, there is one matter that, I think, we have raised, as a Back Bench, severally, and that I would want you to take into account. It is to the effect that when an hon. Member asks a Question and a Minister is unable to answer--- Sanctions have been given in this House many at times, that certain Ministers will not transact business in this House. But it has been punishment on the side of the Questioner. That is because a matter that should have urgently been addressed is at times delayed because the specific Minister cannot transact the same business until the allegations raised against him or her for not appearing in the House are dealt with. So, we are asking whether, indeed, the sanctions we seem to be giving in this House from the Chair of punishing a Minister by asking him not to transact any business is of any essence. It is so much troublesome because, at times, it is even a reprieve. When a Minister is asked not to transact any business, he gets a leeway because the problematic way of coming, addressing an issue, quarrelling with hon. Members while trying to seek for answers has been lifted off the shoulder of that Minister. So, it happens that we are giving reprieve to Ministers and punishment to the Questioner. So, in essence, this is a reprieve to the Minister and a punishment to the Questioner. So, when you are giving a ruling, please, try to see whether you can address this issue."
}