Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 527066,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/527066/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 286,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ethuro",
    "speaker_title": "The Speaker",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 158,
        "legal_name": "Ekwee David Ethuro",
        "slug": "ekwee-ethuro"
    },
    "content": " Order, hon. Senators. First, I want to appreciate everyone who has contributed to this particular point of order on whether this particular Motion should proceed or not. Ideally, for the purpose of the House, a Motion is before the House when it has already been proposed and seconded. If you look at Article 92 which is the basis that the Senate Majority Leader raised objections to proceed with this Motion, you will see that it is inconsistent with other issues especially if you want to deal with a matter that is unconstitutional before the House. Sen. Murungi made it abundantly clear that if a matter is secret in nature, the House proceeds to allow it to be prosecuted, and then we are already exposing the secrecy. So, on that basis - I am willing to consider this matter on that basis so that you look at what is required. Let me comment on the Senate Majority Leader who probably because of constraint of time did not divulge the details. However, he made the point from the very beginning, which was very important on whether this matter is sub judice or not. He went ahead to table a document. He was challenged by the Senate Minority Leader and Senator Orengo that he had failed to give the particulars. The question is whether those particulars must be given by the Senate Majority Leader or any other Senator who alleges the same. It was, therefore, my determination that any other Senator who has already objected could also lay more grounds. Those grounds were given by the Deputy Speaker himself in terms of declarations being sought in the High Court. Ordinarily – I want to appreciate that this is the basis upon which I approved this Motion – that the House must pronounce itself on legislation. Two, I was not aware that the matter would proceed to court. I have carefully looked at the dates and it is true that the recourse from the Senate Minority Leader came before they proceeded to court. Three, I cannot on my own Motion determine whether the matter is sub judice and to decide on whether to approve or not. That is not for the Chair but for the House to ventilate and to bring forward those arguments. So, it is on the Floor of the House that the arguments should be made. Secondly, is this a matter of national importance? I cannot agree more. This matter is very important to the nation. Is there conspiracy between the Senate and the Judiciary? I want to disagree completely. The basis on which the reference to the Judiciary would be made is not because of any other matter but because each state organ has a responsibility to ensure that every institution is given the operational mandate. Since we have been claiming that our mandate is being constricted, we should be the last ones to do the same to others. Can you play politics in the Senate? Yes, we are all politicians. We have no business being here if we are not politicians. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate"
}