Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 414496,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/414496/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 1459,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kajwang’",
    "speaker_title": "The Temporary Deputy Chairman",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2712,
        "legal_name": "Tom Joseph Kajwang'",
        "slug": "kajwang-tom-joseph-francis"
    },
    "content": "“No amendment shall be moved which is inconsistent with any part of the Bill already agreed to or any decision already made by the Committee, and the Chairperson may at any time during the debate of a proposed amendment, withdraw it from the consideration of the Committee if in the opinion of the Chairperson, the debate has shown that the amendment contravenes this paragraph”. So, if we have decided in the substance of the Bill to talk about the gazetted areas, we can now not make an amendment which negates what we have already agreed on. Do you get how that argument follows? Therefore, in the previous Subsection 5, it gives me an authority that:- “No amendment shall be permitted to be moved if the amendment deals with a different subject---” Of course, yours does not deal with a different subject. “---or proposes to unreasonably or unduly expand the subject of the Bill---” Yours does not do that. “---or is not appropriate or is not in logical sequence to the subject matter of the bill”. I think yours may not be appropriate. So, I am persuaded to find your amendment inadmissible, that it is not appropriate in this context that we have already discussed the subject matter on the substantive Bill. So, if you want to bring that amendment, you would have to bring it as a fresh amendment to this legislation after it has been assented to by the President. That is my understanding of that law. Does that help us without any discussion on this?"
}