Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 483958,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/483958/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 59,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, the matter of hate speech are matters of strict proof; this Senate cannot constitute itself into a court and validate a charge of hate speech. There are institutions that are able to undertake these types of investigations beyond reasonable doubt and these are the consequence of criminal proceedings. Just the fact that there is a mere correlation that the Deputy Governor said that he uttered these words is, in my view, an insufficient basis to pass the guilty verdict on account of a criminal allegation of such enormity, which onus of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Constitution places a threshold of what bars public officers to hold public office on account of criminal allegations and a conviction pursuant to Article 193(2)(f) and 193(3) of the Constitution. It is just not a mere discretion; we do not just say “we think somebody is a murderer” and bring him here for impeachment. The Constitution says you must have been convicted of an offence not exceeding six months of imprisonment and after having been convicted of that offence, you must have exhausted the machinery for appeal. Therefore, this particular charge or these charges, of which are premature, 24 charges out of which 21 were unsubstantiated and three were substantiated just on account of a transcript, because the Senate conducts a trial. If you were to conduct a genuine trial, look at what the Committee on Governor Wambora did; it called the Auditor-General and it called the Public Procurement Oversight Authority (PPOA)."
}