Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 512878,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/512878/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 491,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kajwang’",
    "speaker_title": "The Temporary Deputy Chairman",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2712,
        "legal_name": "Tom Joseph Kajwang'",
        "slug": "kajwang-tom-joseph-francis"
    },
    "content": " Hon. Members, the Chair is very sympathetic to whatever amendments you want to bring before the House but the Chair is tied to your Standing Orders to keep fidelity to them. They are not procedural technicalities, they are substance. I want you to look at Standing Order 133(2) which says:- “(2) No amendment shall be moved to any part of a Bill by any Member, other than the Member in charge of the Bill, unless written notification of the amendment shall have been given to the Clerk twenty- four hours before the commencement of the sitting at which that part of the Bill is considered in Committee.” “Bill” meaning what we are discussing right now. This is to a Bill, not a motion. The Member who is proposing to make this amendment has just given a hand-written copy of his proposal. Let me tell you why it is not procedural; it should go through the process of analysing, aligning it with the law and also you should give the Chair an opportunity to look at it. That is the intention. It is not just a procedural thing, it is substantive. Even if you go to sub-section 3 it states:- “(3) Despite paragraph (2), where an amendment has been moved to any part of a Bill in accordance with this paragraph, any Member may move an amendment to that amendment on delivering to the Chairperson the terms of his or her amendment in writing” which the hon. Member has done despite paragraph (2). Yes, hon. Member for Seme."
}