Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 436865,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/436865/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 99,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Orengo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 129,
        "legal_name": "Aggrey James Orengo",
        "slug": "james-orengo"
    },
    "content": "On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. The problem of the approach that is being used by the Senate Majority Leader and the Chairman of the Committee on Finance, Commerce and Budget is that the Constitution is being read selectively. If you read the Constitution selectively and take one part of the Constitution, then what you are saying is true. I cannot disagree with it. But if you look at the financial provisions of the Constitution and do not read them conjunctively, then we are bound to fall into a big constitutional error. There is no problem talking about the most recent audited accounts, but the Constitution places a responsibility on Parliament. This is in accordance with Article 229(4). It says within six months after the end of each financial year, the Auditor-General shall audit and report in respect of that financial year. When the Auditor-General finishes his job, Article 229(7) directs him on what to do. It states:- “Audit reports shall be submitted to Parliament or the relevant county assembly.” Article 229(8) states:- “Within three months after receiving an audit report, Parliament or the county assembly shall debate and consider the report and take appropriate action.” Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, if we now concentrate on 2009/2010 accounts---"
}