GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/354638/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 354638,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/354638/?format=api",
"text_counter": 101,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon (Dr.) Eseli",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 141,
"legal_name": "David Eseli Simiyu",
"slug": "david-eseli"
},
"content": "Hon. Speaker, Sir, the issue of the size of the committees should not worry the hon. Members because the committees are allowed to form sub-committees to deal with different departments in the various Ministries, if that is necessary. So, there is a way around it. I think that can be solved very easily. However, my main issue is on Standing Order No.205 and Standing Order 206, which provide for the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the Public Investments Committee (PIC) â the two oversight committees. You will notice that the Committee proposes to increase the numbers on those committees, which is all very good. However, these committees are oversight committees. I would have thought that the Committee on Procedure and House Rules would have looked at these particular Standing Orders. If the majority on those committees are going to be the ruling coalition members, then we are saying that they will be providing oversight to themselves, and that is not possible. Even if the chairman was to come from the minority, then such chairman would just be a figurehead. I think if we want to do justice to this country it would be wise, or prudent, for the committee to look at a way of amending that Standing Order, so that the coalition, or party, that is not in Government has the majority on that committee and the chairmanship. In that way, we would be able to provide proper oversight. This is important, and that is why I started by saying that when we make rules, or when we pass legislation, we should do so for posterity and not for expediency."
}