Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 350165,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/350165/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 912,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Keynan",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 41,
        "legal_name": "Adan Wehliye Keynan",
        "slug": "adan-keynan"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, once we are through with this, I will be proposing subsequent amendments to the National Assembly Standing Orders and also the Joint Rules so that it is consistent. Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, if you look at the Schedules of the National Assembly Standing Orders, Defence has been put under the Homeland Security. You can ask Maj- Gen. Nkaisserry; it is not the tradition anywhere. So, what we will be doing is to propose amendments, have a separate Committee for Homeland Security and a different Committee for both Defence and Foreign Relations. Intelligence will be all over. So, instead of having a Joint Committee for both the Senate and the National Assembly, let us allow the Senate to have its own intelligence committee, whether they call it the National Security or whatever, and allow also the National Assembly to do the same. Look at the roles, you might require something at the county and that might not have anything to do with the National Assembly. It might be unique for the county. That is what I was trying to suggest. Otherwise, we will harmonize and each House will have its own intelligence committee. That is what I was trying to suggest. Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, therefore, all the subsequent amendments on the Senate Standing Orders, the National Assembly Standing Orders and the Joint Standing Orders will harmonize the same, so that each House has a distinct security committee that deals with that particular aspect, instead of that amorphous Joint Intelligence Committee. Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, if you look at it clearly, Standing Order No.218(2) (b) is not in tandem with what we have passed. Therefore, if something has already been rejected in an Act, then having it in the Standing Orders, again, really will negate the very spirit. That is what I was trying to suggest. So, it does not make sense as is captured here. More so, having oversighted this and taking into account the unique role of the National Intelligence Service (NIS)---The Chairman, everybody else and I work for the state. Therefore, allowing the same organization the latitude to pick individuals of their choice technically means that we will be asking them not to oversight themselves. So, we can as well even say that they are not under any Parliamentary oversight rule. So, I think that"
}