HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 287854,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/287854/?format=api",
"text_counter": 279,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Wetangula",
"speaker_title": "The Minister for Trade",
"speaker": {
"id": 210,
"legal_name": "Moses Masika Wetangula",
"slug": "moses-wetangula"
},
"content": " Mr. Speaker, Sir, I watched from my office, the Member for Gwassi and, as he always does, he made very eloquent arguments very passionately. I want to urge you as well as the Member for Gwassi, who has done very well as a first timer; that Miscellaneous (Amendments) Bills are not ordinary Bills. These Bills bring rafts of amendments to a whole broad cross-section of statutes. Some of them are actually editorial amendments in nature. They are not even substantive amendments to any law. You would, for example, be substituting a title with another, or an office with another, et cetera . With the hindsight of history, precedence is abound in this Parliament. Similar arguments have been placed on the Floor of this House before, adjudicated and prosecuted very well in the same manner he did. I have seen it in the Seventh Parliament and in many other Parliaments before, and the consistent rulings from the Chair have been: “Yes, you may have a point. You may see something differently but the fact that you see things differently does not automatically become a constitutional issue. It is just an opinion.” Mr. Speaker, Sir, secondly, whenever such arguments were advanced, the House always proceeded on the basis that there is an opportunity at the Committee Stage, where we look at every proposed amendment on each statute because it is so cross-cutting that it is difficult, for example, to say that this Bill can go to any Departmental Committee for scrutiny. Which Committee would you give the Bill to, unless you constitute the whole Plenary of Parliament as a Committee? Hon. Mbadi, in his infinite wisdom and intelligence, will be here, going through the amendments during the Committee Stage, clause by clause, touching on every statute. Whatever he will identify and convince the Chair as unconstitutional will be dealt with as such. Those amendments that are constitutional will go through, so that the country can move forward. We have the new Constitution. We have certain clauses of the former Constitution that are still applicable. We have transitional issues that we have to take care of. Mr. Speaker, Sir, a good lawyer will always stand up in court and say: “This statute is talking of the Attorney-General but the new Constitution only recognises the Director of Public Prosecutions.” This is just an editorial amendment to statutes. I want to urge my brother, and I know that he can be a very reasonable man when he wants to be; that we agree that much as he has raised a point, it is just a hurdle that is being placed on the way of this Bill, being prosecuted on the Floor of the House. I urge him to be ready, and we will support him wherever he will convince us that a certain clause is unconstitutional. Lastly, I heard hon. Millie argue about participation of the public. Let us not overstretch the participation theory. These are not fundamental legislations that require public participation. These are minor amendments to various laws of the country to bring them in line with the current thinking in terms of the new Constitution, and in terms of the current policies and propositions from certain Ministries, so that we can run the country properly. Mr. Speaker, Sir, to say that even when you bring here an amendment that touches on the re-description of the office of the prosecutor from the Attorney-General to the Director of Public Prosecution we must go to the public to ask them to participate is overstretching the participation theory. I want to urge you, Sir, that you rule that, without much ado, this debate continues. I will urge my colleague here. I will be at hand to help him as well to identify and prosecute things that he thinks are unconstitutional, to his total satisfaction. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Sir."
}