Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 33632,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/33632/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 388,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Deputy Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Before I give the Floor to another Member to contribute to the same, I had told the House that I am going to digest and try and understand the objections that were raised by hon. Harun Mwau. I want to give a definite direction on that. Hon. Mwau, when you look at the Transitional Article 20(3) which says that:- “To ensure continuity in the operation of the Judicial Service Commission, despite Article 171(4), when the Commission is first constituted, the following members shall be appointed to serve for three years only-“ Always when we read the Constitution, we not only look at the figurative face value interpretation of the Constitution, but we also look at what was the intent and object of the framers of these provisions in the Constitution. This is basically a staggering. Continuity can be realized by either staggering the appointments. You appoint some now and then others later or as it is done right now as provided for in this Transitional Article or making an exception to certain appointees in the first constitution and appointing them for three years. Subsequent to that, the ones who are going to replace the ones who are appointed for three years will be appointed for five- year terms, which is the period provided for under Article 171. That way, you will have the terms of certain members of the Commission ending at different times. They do not end at the same time. This is the assurance of the continuity. So, I do not see any contradiction between the two and, consequently, rule that this debate continuous to conclusion."
}