Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 426520,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/426520/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 166,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, before I expound on the procedure for consideration of statutory instruments by the House as laid out in the Act, it should be noted that both the repealed Section 34 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, Cap.2, and Part IV of the Statutory Instruments Act, 2013, do not contemplate any process of approval of a statutory instrument by the House. It is presumed that the House, in delegating the power to make statutory instruments, has already signified its approval of that statutory instrument. It is for that reason that both the repealed Section 34 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act and the existing Part IV of the Statutory Instruments Act, 2013 are cast in a language that contemplates the involvement of the House only in instances of annulment of the whole or part of the statutory instrument as opposed to approval of the whole or part of the statutory instrument. The said repealed Section 34 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, Cap.2, provided as follows:- “All rules and regulations made under an Act, unless a contrary intention appears in the Act, be laid before the National Assembly without unreasonable delay, and if a resolution is passed by the Assembly within twenty days on which it next sits after the rule or regulation is laid before it, that the rule or regulation be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder, or to the making of any new rule or regulation.” The same principle of involvement only in annulment is now espoused in Part IV of the Statutory Instruments Act, 2013."
}