Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 356688,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/356688/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 110,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Muchai",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1623,
        "legal_name": "George Mukuru Muchai",
        "slug": "george-mukuru-muchai"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Chairlady, I rise to oppose the intention of deletion of this clause from the Bill. I want to say that the Constitution has encouraged the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and this particular clause seeks to enforce the use of alternative dispute resolution which is anchored in the Constitution. Furthermore, I do not see what is unconstitutional about sub-clauses 2 and 3. The good reading of these two sub-clauses tells you that a state organ must involve the alternative dispute resolution mechanism before seeking litigation on the matter. Sub-clause 3 ensures that an officer in charge of a state organ who encourages the shortcut to the alternative dispute resolution mechanism shall be responsible for the payment of the expenditure incurred by a state organ. I think this particular sub-clause 3 is bringing discipline within the state organ and should be encouraged by all to ensure that as far as possible disputes between state organs are resolved in the best interest of the state organs. The court will be the very last result where indeed, the mechanism applied has not resulted into a resolution. There is nothing unconstitutional about sub-clauses 2 or 3 and I oppose the deletion of this entire Clause 6."
}