Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 487463,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/487463/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 233,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Chepkong’a",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1154,
        "legal_name": "Samuel Kiprono Chepkonga",
        "slug": "samuel-kiprono-chepkonga"
    },
    "content": "Thank you hon. Chairlady, I must thank hon. Kang’ata. He has withdrawn what I thought to myself was a completely new law that he intended to introduce here, particularly to parts (a) and (b). I am trying to persuade him because of two things. Where a victim is a complainant in a criminal case, that victim who is a complainant must have given evidence in the first instance. To allow the victim again to submit at the close of the prosecution, that is prejudicial to the rights of the accused person. What I am suggesting hon. Chairlady is that the only person who can possibly be allowed to submit both orally and in writing, should be the advocate so that it is incumbent upon the victim or the complainant to hire an advocate to assist him or her in submitting. Again, you will be submitting not only the evidence, but including points of law. I do not assume that there may be some instances where the victim or the complainant may be advocates. But more often than not, the victims are not normally lawyers. It will be against the rights of the accused persons to allow a victim or a complainant who has already given evidence and participated in the trial, at the conclusion of the proceedings, the victim or the complainant wakes up and says that he or she has something to submit in regard to the case. I think we should divorce this because The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}