Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 296399,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/296399/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 1203,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Dr. Laboso",
    "speaker_title": "The Temporary Deputy Chairman",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 63,
        "legal_name": "Joyce Cherono Laboso",
        "slug": "joyce-laboso"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Members, this very matter that we are raising here was raised with the Speaker and he gave a ruling. So, that we put an end to what is going on now, allow me to just read what the Speaker ruled. It reads: “Standing Order No.47 emphasizes this point by providing that the Speaker, if he is of the opinion that any proposed Motion is contrary to the Constitution, without expressly proposing appropriate amendments to the Constitution, may direct either that the Motion is inadmissible or that notice of it cannot be given without such alterations as the Speaker may approve. That said, I must agree with the remarks of the Attorney General made last Thursday, that a conclusion that a provision of a Bill is unconstitutional, should not be casually or hastily arrived at, without considering all the points of view. It cannot be the case that every claim of unconstitutionality suspends the proceedings of this House until a ruling is made by a Speaker. It may well be the case that the claim, on closer scrutiny, is made on account of an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution or is, otherwise, unfounded. It is for this reason that the Speaker may allow other points of views to be advanced or proceedings to continue, as he reflects on the claim of unconstitutionality. That was, indeed, the case in the present matter. I wish to urge the Members, however, that points of order on the basis of unconstitutionality be carefully considered before they are raised. It is possible that the proceedings of the House could become adversely affected if, instead of points of arguments being advanced in debates on the Floor and contrary views expressed on the same manner or by voting for or against specific provisions, matters are, indeed, raised as challenges on constitutionality.”"
}