Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 273998,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/273998/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 460,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "or without due consideration of the law. The Memorandum presented by His Excellency the President speaks for itself. The President has identified the provisions that he has difficulties with. He has also explained the manner in which he believes they can be dealt with by the House and given his own interpretation of the Constitution, as he understands it unless you were to rule that the President is not entitled to interpret the Constitution, but hon. Imanyara is. This is because both these distinguished Members of this House are perfectly entitled to make an interpretation of the Constitution. I, therefore, say this with tremendous respect, that the issues raised by the hon. Member go to the question of the substantive merits of the opinion held by the President. They do not go to the question of the admissibility of the Memorandum that the President has sent to this House. Mr. Chairman, Sir, I submit that the President’s Memoranda is within the four pillars of our existing Constitution. You will recall that the operative provisions on the exercise of the President’s veto are the provisions as contained in our old Constitution. These provisions are in Section 46(4) and 46(5) of the old Constitution, and read:- “Where the President refuses to assent to a Bill, he shall within 14 days of the refusal, submit a memorandum to the Speaker indicating the specific provisions of the Bill, which in his opinion, should be reconsidered by the National Assembly, including his recommendations for amendments. The National Assembly shall reconsider a Bill referred to it by the President taking into account the comments of the President.”"
}