Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 441957,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/441957/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 263,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kajwang’",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2712,
        "legal_name": "Tom Joseph Kajwang'",
        "slug": "kajwang-tom-joseph-francis"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. He knows how to multi-task. The persons entitled to benefit shall be persons who, at any time after 15th January, 2008, retired as Prime Minister, Vice-President and so forth, and do not engage in elective politics. I want to suggest to the House that the words: “and do not engage in electives politics” negates the entire Bill. This is unconstitutional. I do not want to get into politics; I just want to look at the law. This is unconstitutional. Under Article 38 of the Constitution, everybody in this country, including you and I, are entitled to what has become political rights. There are unalienable rights which cannot be removed because we were born with them and God gave them to us. Article 38 talks about the rights to form, participate in political parties and participate in activities or recruit members of political parties, campaign for a political party’s course and so forth. When we promulgated the Constitution, this is where we have come and we have raised some rights to be constitutional. Therefore, whether we have a problem with these political rights or not, the Constitution has given this to us. When you serve and you retire, you still have those rights. You can still retire and then engage all those political rights that the Constitution gives you. We cannot pass a Bill or a law in this House which is inconsistent with the Constitution. That is because Article 2 (4) states that:- “Any law, including customary law that is inconsistent with this Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency, and act or omission in contravention of this Constitution is invalid.” Therefore, it is very difficult to argue away from this issue. It is a constitutional matter except, I suppose that, when a person is relieved from active holding of that office, he participates in politics and in any other of those things and joins another office. I think it is right to say that when he joins that office, then he should be able to realize the benefits under this Act. I think, perhaps, what we were do is to say that you can do what you want because this is the Constitution giving it to you. But if you get that office that you are looking for, then you must realize the benefits that are accrued."
}