Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 581072,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/581072/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 68,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ochieng",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2955,
        "legal_name": "David Ouma Ochieng'",
        "slug": "david-ouma-ochieng"
    },
    "content": "Standing Order No. 62 has not been operationalised before in this Assembly. A third of the Members of this Assembly would be 116 Members. I have done my calculations and the 28 “Noes” of yesterday are less than a quarter of 116 Members, yet the Standing Order says they should be at least one-third of the Members of the Assembly. If they are less than one-third, you can exercise your discretion to allow a further vote. Someone would ask why we did not stand up to claim a Division. Standing Order No. 62 is very clear. I want to distinguish this Standing Order from Standing Order No. 72 where on a normal vote by acclamation and there is a contestation of the result, Members may rise in their places to claim a Division. If more than 30 rise in their places, you would then call for a roll call vote. Standing Order No. 62 does not allow that. In fact, the Bill we are dealing with does not even allow for an acclamation vote. It is very clear that this kind of a Bill can only be voted on through a Division. When I saw my colleagues standing up after Hon. Lelelit’s Bill had been defeated, I laughed because there is no provision for Members to call for a Division after a Division. We were already in a Division when we were voting on that Bill. There is no Standing Order or constitutional provision allowing for a Division in a Division. The problem we have is that Standing Order No. 62 has no provision for operationalising it. That is why I request you, probably through a ruling, to advise us as Members on how and"
}