Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 552252,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/552252/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 167,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Langat",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 384,
        "legal_name": "Benjamin Kipkirui Langat",
        "slug": "benjamin-langat"
    },
    "content": "Constitution, the AG has the final say. He can actually accept or reject the advice he is being given because the law is very clear. What the Senate is proposing is that the person being advised will chair the advisory committee. How do you advise yourself? I think it would be better to either do away with the whole advisory committee issue or we make it more objective so that the person being advised does not chair that process. He is the final person to decide whether he will take that advice or disagrees with it and performs his functions as per the Constitution. So, I will be asking the House again to strongly reject this idea that you must chair the person who is trying to advise you. Clause 26 deals with the functions of the advisory Committee. After careful consideration, the Committee agreed that the Senate added some value here because it made it clear that the function of the advisory committee is to advise. The way it is presently worded makes it look like the advisory committee will actually do what it is supposed to advise on. We agreed on Clause 26 and I will ask the House to support the amendments to Clause 26 at the relevant stage. I do not want my Committee to be seen to be sadist. We actually agreed with them. Clause 32 deals with the AG using the reports of internal auditors of respective organs of Government. What that clause was saying is that the internal reports of the State organ may be given to the AG if he wishes to have them. However, the Senate wants to say that they must be given to the AG, whether he needs them or not. If you look at Clause 32(2), the AG may demand all the internal audit reports. The amendment is superfluous and it does not make sense at all."
}