Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 391868,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/391868/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 110,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Ombaka",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1007,
        "legal_name": "Christine Oduor Ombaka",
        "slug": "christine-oduor-ombaka"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Deputy Speaker, after the disturbance had taken place, the Committee carried out investigation, compiled and submitted a report that was tabled and discussed before the University Council. Let me just jump over some issues. The Committee identified 17 students who played the leading role in planning, mobilizing fellow students and executing the strike that resulted in the destruction of facilities and looting of university property. The Committee found that the action by the students was contrary to the rules and regulations governing the Students Council and discipline. The rules and regulations that the students were found to have contravened had been developed and approved as per Section 12(1)(f) of the Legal Notice 102 of 15th January, 2008. The Committee recommended as follows:- That the 17 students appear before the University College Student Disciplinary Committee to answer charges that were specific to each one of them; for readmission, each of the 1,398 students who were in session during the disturbance, be charged Kshs4,930; and the University College takes short, medium and long-term measures to alleviate water challenges among other things. The Students Disciplinary Committee (SDC) of the University College Academic Board which is provided for in Statute 16 under the terms of reference invited 17 students to appear before the Committee. These were the recommendations that the Committee made. Two students were exonerated and allowed to continue with their studies, one student was warned and allowed to continue with the studies, one student was suspended for one academic year and one student was suspended for four academic years. The following ten were expelled from the university. I will not mention their names, but they are here. Two students who were invited to appear before the Board did not appear before the SDC and therefore were suspended. This is also a section that tells us about the approval of the SDC. The decision of the SDC tabled discusses the adoption in the University College Academic Board meeting of 18th December, 2012. They were ratified as follows:- Twelve of the expelled and suspended students appealed against the decision to suspend or expel them and the decision arrived at was as follows: One student’s expulsion was lifted and the student was immediately reinstated in the university and issued with a warning letter. Four students resumed classes. One student’s suspension for one academic year was upheld and he is expected to resume his studies on 23rd The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}