HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 499916,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/499916/?format=api",
"text_counter": 177,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "destroy us, even the public out there will lose confidence in us. We want to send a very strong message to the public: Do not be shaken. We are not shaken. The last time we went for an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court, I recall, distinctly that both the Deputy President and the President told us that they wanted to be enjoined in the advisory. If, indeed, that be the case, we would like to invite the Executive; that is, the President, the Deputy President and the National Assembly, if they so wish and if they are mature enough, to be enjoined in this advisory. The advisory does not advise only on a matter of the Senate. This is a matter of law and the Constitution. That is what the Supreme Court is supposed to tell us so that we know this matter is supposed to work this way or that way. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with us being enjoined with others who may want this to be part of them rather than looking as if we are against them. Mr. Speaker, Sir, we should make it very clear that when we go for an advisory, we will not be doing it against somebody or an institution, the Executive or the Judiciary or the National Assembly. In fact, this is supposed to clear matters so that all those institutions relate in a manner that is mature. If this had not come to be, had there never been, a situation where Bills are being passed against the Constitution and being acted upon against the Constitution, the matter would not have arisen. Therefore, the reason that we are in the Supreme Court is not a matter of choice by the Senate. This is a matter of force by certain other institutions. That is why we are there. We are not there because we love the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the fact that we do. We are there because there are matters that must be determined. Since clearly, there is no wish on the part of Parliament to determine these matters because of egos or otherwise, it is clear that we go to other institutions that can assist in that process. It is very important that we do not become hostages of egos. Indeed, that is what we have become. If you read the Constitution, you will see that it envisages a situation where there might be differences between Governors and Senators. That is why there is the Inter-Governmental Relations Act. However, at no time did the Constitution contemplate that the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Speaker of the Senate will not get along. It was a mistake because it vested a lot of authority on the goodwill of individuals. Only on the goodwill of institutions should we rely on and never on individuals. Had there been a clear law or manner in which these two gentlemen must relate, for example, they must meet on Thursday, twice a week, every quarter or some other very clearly established manner, perhaps we would not be in this situation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, having said that, if an individual is capable of ignoring what is in the Constitution, then even if there was a law, chances are that they would still ignore that law. Therefore, I support that we go to the Supreme Court. I am of the view that the Supreme Court will rise above all these things and give us a proper advice."
}