Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 356789,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/356789/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 211,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ngong’o",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 110,
        "legal_name": "John Mbadi Ng'ong'o",
        "slug": "john-mbadi"
    },
    "content": "I listen to lawyers argue and I was asking myself, why was it necessary for this particular bill, for Article 218 to say expressly that this Bill shall be accompanied by a memorandum? We all know that all bills are accompanied by memorandum. But when the Constitution expressly states that a bill shall be accompanied by a memorandum, it is telling something and it becomes constitutional. This idea of saying that it is traditional that memorandum must accompany all bills does not apply to this. This specific bill, the Constitution says must be accompanied by a memorandum. Let me tell you, during the last Parliament, we passed something in Elections law which said that anybody who does not have a degree shall not contest. In fact, the people who were cheering did not have degrees. They did not know what we were passing. Afterwards, we met them when we were taking tea and they were almost in tears. Let us not be in tears tomorrow for passing something in this House that we are going to regret. When we were arguing about the issue of salaries and we were told that we were the same people who set up the Salaries and Remuneration Commission, you feel also stupid and embarrassed. Are we going to be embarrassed again tomorrow because another lawyer who is not T.J. is going to interpret it to mean that since the Constitution said that the memorandum must be part of the Bill, it is a bill? I am saying anther lawyer will say that. Why is it that for this Bill the Constitution is telling us that we must accompany it with memorandum? If it is the tradition, why do you not leave it out? That is why sometimes I have a problem with lawyers because they confuse people. In accounts, we are very straightforward, you either debit or credit. Either you steal or you do not steal. There are no two ways about it, theft is theft, but for lawyers they want to steal from you and they will never tell you, until they have stolen from you."
}