Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 477738,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/477738/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 278,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Dr.) Pukose",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1458,
        "legal_name": "Robert Pukose",
        "slug": "robert-pukose"
    },
    "content": "In terms of the Act on the advocates, where we are removing the Director of Public Prosecutions from participating as a member of the board, I think it is wrong. The Director of Public Prosecutions is a stakeholder, and he might be able to prosecute an advocate who is found to have seriously breached the law. I think we shall be missing the point because it means that the Director of Public Prosecutions will not have an opportunity to access the evidence that he needs to prosecute an individual. In a way, we shall be making ourselves immune to prosecution and making the work of the Director of Public Prosecutions difficult in terms of accessing evidence that he may need to prosecute an advocate who is found to be culpable. On the amendments of the National Intelligence Service (NIS), in terms of collection of crucial information, this is the right direction because we will be empowering our security intelligence units to be able to access key information. Even in the US, the intelligence service listens to conversations of heads of state from other countries. The Wiki leaks led us to knowing a lot of what happens in other countries. So, I do not think there is anything wrong with our NIS being given the opportunity to access information. If we have to fight serious crime, including terrorism and other security threats facing our country, the NSI should have a right to access such information. In terms of denial of bail---"
}