Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 297177,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/297177/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 219,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Mungatana",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 185,
        "legal_name": "Danson Buya Mungatana",
        "slug": "danson-mungatana"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to thank you for your ruling and I agree with part of it, but even assuming that we are going to proceed on the basis of Article 222; that whether or not the Appropriation Act has been assented to, we can still approve the estimates. My point is only one, which I listened to carefully but I did not see you hammering it. Which estimates are we going to be looking at? This is because this House has already put a report here to seek amendments through the Budget Committee of the Printed Estimates the Minister has laid on the Table. If this House has already said there are amendments, the proper thing would have been for the Minister to reprint the estimates in accordance with the recommendations of the Budget Committee and it is on that basis that we could have said: “Okay, let us go on with the Vote of Account and let us withdraw the 50 per cent.” However, as it stands now, we have two positions on the estimates. There is the Printed Estimates the Minister has laid on the Table and there is the one that after the Budget Committee talked with the Minister via various inter departmental committees’ inputs, the Minister now ought to have brought the second reprinted estimates. So, the House has two positions there and the latest position is the one of the Budget Committee. It is wrong for us to purport to approve what this House said is not correct. So, we cannot proceed on the basis of the Estimates that the Minister tabled here. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg that you reconsider that issue. Thank you."
}