Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 461083,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/461083/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 26,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "“A commission is a creature of the Executive through an Act of Parliament. If the Commission of Inquiry was formed before the relevant Departmental Committee(s) was seized of the matter to be inquired into, then good sense would have dictated that Parliament may have to await the findings of the Commission of Inquiry. The same good sense that would have also dictated the setting up of the Commission of Inquiry would have awaited the results of the Parliamentary Inquiry. But this is just a good sense. I do not think that the setting up of a Parliamentary inquiry would by that very fact stop an already ongoing Commission of Inquiry and vice versa. Each has a different reporting authority. This situation is clumsy but I see nothing legally wrong with it. Each in theory at least, is trying to establish the truth to the appointing authority. The results may, indeed, be fascinating. Neither the Commission of Inquiry nor the Parliamentary Committee inquiries can stop the executive from conducting its own parallel investigations to establish whether or not any crimes have been committed by any person or persons and charge those persons in a court of competent jurisdiction.”"
}