Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 355538,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/355538/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 175,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kaluma",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1565,
        "legal_name": "George Peter Opondo Kaluma",
        "slug": "george-peter-opondo-kaluma"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Speaker, Sir, for confidentiality in law, I will not disclose it. The problem we have in the House in terms of dealing with PIC and PAC is how we consider the roles of those two committees and for us on the side of minority, for all intents and purposes, we will be dealing with the major oversight of what was equivalent of the Opposition. We believe that when we are interpreting any statutory instrument, and this is not the only one, I mentioned that by benefit of late learning, there are up to 13 rules of interpreting every legal instrument you find. The Standing Order says this and so it goes that way. There is a rule of interpretation of legal instrument called “the mischief rule”. In the context of that mischief rule, I wanted to inform the House that we need to question what the intention of any good governance system was in always insisting these two oversight Committees ought to be on the side that should be the equivalent of the Opposition. I am saying that there is reason as to why we should not only chair on the side of Minority, but we should also have the majority. In fact, from my point and understanding the intention I will prefer a situation where the Majority side even chairs these Committees. We have all these Committees and they can chair them if their greed will be sustained that way. However, there are Committees which by tint of their functions ought to be led in majority by the Minority. I was thinking and suggesting that we go ejusdem generis if not by mischief rule in interpreting this provision."
}