GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/287110/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 287110,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/287110/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 366,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mrs. Shebesh",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 377,
        "legal_name": "Rachel Wambui Shebesh",
        "slug": "rachel-shebesh"
    },
    "content": "I stand guided, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. However, I take what the Chair says in this House very seriously. I take what the Chair says as final. Even if we do not have to belabour that point it would be preferrable to see the legal recommendations that were given by the House. Nevertheless, the contradiction that I see is that the Committee dismisses the name that was presented in the list for Chair, a Ms. Amina Masoud. In dismissing the name the Committee says that they found her not appropriate. However, they did not go on to tell us what was inappropriate about her candidature. They then accuse the vetting panel of not being clear as to why the name of Jean Kamau was left out. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am tired of women being used as baits to settle political scores. If you are blaming the panel for not giving you clear reasons as to why the name of Jean Kamau did not come, also tell us clearly why the name of Amina who was recommended is not suitable. In this way, we will not be seen to use women to fight a war. I heard the Committee say that there are two issues here, political and constitutional. I believe there is no political issue here. If it was a political issue, we would not have the section in the Constitution which is very clear in the Sixth Schedule. Section 29(2) clearly states the issue of consultation. It is a constitutional issue and not just a political issue. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in your ruling, please, give us guidance on Section 29(2) of the Sixth Schedule in terms of consultation. This is because it has been said before but seems to be ignored. Give us guidance on the recommendation of removing one person’s name and on the same basis bringing in the name of another; lastly, if Mr. Kavuludi is not a lawyer and they have clearly stated that they were giving the President a choice of three names, why did they not give the name of Mr. Mbai, who is the other lawyer, rather than the name of a person who is not a lawyer? Their argument is that they were giving the President the best lawyers; I want us to desist from using the name of a woman today on the Floor of this House to try and draw emotions. This is because we will do what we have done to very many chairs through the debates we have here, and end up destroying people’s careers for no reason. Let us discuss facts and procedure; did the Committee follow procedure?"
}