Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 356679,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/356679/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 101,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kajwang’",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2712,
        "legal_name": "Tom Joseph Kajwang'",
        "slug": "kajwang-tom-joseph-francis"
    },
    "content": "Clause 6(1) in itself is good law because the Constitution anticipates that there will be dispute resolution and an Act of Parliament really can regulate that organs would first of all look for all dispute settlements mechanisms before they approach a court of law. It is reasonable. So, to that extent I am inclined to support my sister, hon. Kajuju on this matter but again subsection 2 and 3 of the Clause is actually unlawful and unconstitutional. The Constitution itself has allowed the organs to be able to interface and the Inter-governmental Relations Act itself has also allowed further the mechanisms by which this can be done. To legislate a criminal fetter to a Constitution which does not give any such fetter is to place a criterion that the Constitution by its own wisdom decided not to put. I think this will make people just fearful. It will make governors not work, it will make public officers not to try to do what is right and a court of law has in a sense to decide that it has not been exhausted in the mechanism giving style. So, hon. Chairlady, as I object to the deletion of the entire clause, I think Sub-sections 2 and 3 should be deleted. You said that discussions in the Committee would be a little lax, I just want to ask guidance from the Chair. I really think that Sub-section 2 and 3 is really unconstitutional. I do not know how you can direct the House that although Sub-section 1 should be retained Sub-section 2 and 3 to the extent that they prefer a fetter should be actually deleted."
}