HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 425010,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/425010/?format=api",
"text_counter": 194,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Oyugo",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 444,
"legal_name": "Augostinho Neto Oyugi",
"slug": "augostinho-neto-oyugi"
},
"content": "precincts of Parliament. I think those are things that fall within the very ambit of the Powers and Privileges Committee. If at all the fundamental freedoms and things we speak in the House, in the committees of the House and things we believe are fair comments in terms of helping committees of the House progress and move fast, these are the things that ought to be protected by the Powers and Privileges Committee. That way, the Members sitting in the Powers and Privileges Committee should not only think that it is a disciplinary tool for Members who actually will go errant. Hon. Speaker, the second thing I would like to speak to is on Article 103(b) of the Constitution, I really think this is one article that needs urgent amendment. The circumstances where Members, sometimes skip sessions--- Ordinarily, the last Constitution was very well worded, “eight consecutive sessions”. Of course, a Member of Parliament has no business missing eight consecutive sessions. But a Session of Parliament running for close to a year, sometimes, it becomes a little bit tricky for Members not to skip sessions. Of course, hon. Speaker is going to be very generous in giving us permission to attend to constituency and other businesses, but I really think that the wording of Section 103(b) of the Constitution needs to be thought through and looked at. Hon. Speaker, the other thing is that if you look at Section 9 of the Act from which the Powers and Privileges Committee emanates from, the Code of Conduct that it refers to, in my humble opinion, is in need of urgent review. That is because, as you can see, it is legislation that was done in 1966. In 1966 legislation, the standards of decorum and the standards that were then hoped to be of Members of Parliament are quite different from today’s expectations. So, I appreciate the Powers and Privileges Committee but some of the sections that we are talking about need to be reviewed. A conduct that was supposed to be deplorable in 1966 might not be deplorable in 2014. I really think it is true and it is good to have a Powers and Privileges Committee, but again, there is need to have a re-definition in terms of the code of conduct. Lastly, hon. Speaker, on Section 12 I really think that whereas we did not want to subject the decisions of the Powers and Privileges Committee to any court of law, I think, of course, you believe in the principle of natural justice. I really believe that there ought to be another parity arm or some sort of recourse where, for example, a Member could look for reasons of review. You have noticed how debate, sometimes, go on in this House. It is not that we intend to be emotional or unruly, but there are moments when things get out of hand and because of the spur and heat of the moment, some Members might really engage in untoward behavior which is unbecoming of Parliament. But there ought to be a measure of review so that people can have recourse so that, at least, either to feel sorry or to recompense and to get back to their normal self without necessarily being subjected to the various sanctions of the Powers and Privileges Committee. With those few remarks, I would like to support the composition of this Committee. Thank you very much."
}