Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 331603,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/331603/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 321,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. George Nyamweya",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not sure that the reasons that the Ministers are advancing or advocating are that convincing. What was the intention of the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board? Was it not supposed to be a transitory exercise, moving us from the old order to the new order? When we propose to remove whatever we want to remove and give it to the JSC, which ultimately should have the powers to vet and employ, why do we think that we should continue with this exercise as if it will be a long-term Board? Would it not have been better maybe to give them a similar thing like an extension to conclude the work that they have embarked on rather than making it a permanent mandate for a board which should cease as soon as it has finished its exercise? Secondly, this subject is a bit deeper than it is because we are looking at one arm of the Government only, which is the Judiciary. The others – we hear the arguments that we, in the Legislature, will go through the vetting and, therefore, Chapter Six will be decided by the people. The Executive appointments will be approved by the Legislature. That may make some sense. However, you must also be able to read the true intention of what the Constitution provides in terms of dealing with judges and magistrates when we want them to be removed from office. Does it not give them the right to have a tribunal so that they face whatever allegations they are subjected to?"
}