Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 524839,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/524839/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 168,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ababu",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 108,
        "legal_name": "Ababu Tawfiq Pius Namwamba",
        "slug": "ababu-namwamba"
    },
    "content": "My other concern extends to Sub-sections 6 and 7 of Section 40 of the Bill. When you look at Sub-section 6, the Cabinet is given the power to approve categories of security related projects which shall qualify for special treatment under audit under this section. The role of oversight belongs to the Legislature. This section, if passed in its current form, will turn the Constitution on its head. It would transfer the oversight role of this House back to the Cabinet so that the Cabinet would then determine what is subject to oversight and what is not. We need again to think a little bit more keenly on how the Legislature can be part of this process of identifying areas that may benefit from non- disclosure. If we allow this section to go as it is, we run the risk of offending Article 229(5) and (6) of the Constitution by reason of exclusion; that we are allowing the Executive to exclude certain expenditures from audit. That section of the Article of the Constitution provides that the Auditor-General may audit and report on the accounts of any entity that is funded from public funds. To allow the Executive to exclude any entity or to protect any entity would be unconstitutional. But this House, as the oversight organ, can serve to protect national interest by identifying areas that may be protected."
}