Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 287846,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/287846/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 271,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. George Nyamweya",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, for example, what is to stop a committee itself finding that a matter which has been referred to it borders on it being unconstitutional? That does not have to be the role of the Speaker. The committee itself in its own deliberations can find that this is not something that we can recommend to the entire House but to suggest therefore that because somebody may have noted that one or two proposed amendments may be on that border line, let us now shut the whole House down and send the Attorney- General and tell him: Go and try again since we have the luxury of time, is really not quite the right way to go. What is the history behind this particular approach to amendments? If we have amendments, we do not always have to change everything because it is very fashionable to simply say: Now, we have a new Constitution and let us also have new people and everything must be new. There must be some other things which are from practice and practices are useful to the House and to the country. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues here that those areas that they feel very strongly, point them out in the relevant committee that this is where we think it is unconstitutional and those ones which are straightforward, let us just deal with them and get on with it because I am particularly worried that days are moving and the pieces of legislation which we must attend to in order to have a stable country, we may not have the time to attend to them. We will be sitting here up to midnight and come back with the very same problems which now require amendments because we are not giving ourselves sufficient time to attend to the relevant matters."
}