Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 581302,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/581302/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 298,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kaluma",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1565,
        "legal_name": "George Peter Opondo Kaluma",
        "slug": "george-peter-opondo-kaluma"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, It appears Hon. Neto is speaking my mind before I do. Let me speak his mind. This is the power being given to a court to issue warrants for forcible entry into a premise and for destruction of prohibited objects in the premises. It is an abrogation of the right to property and right to privacy. This is the reason I initially indicated that if we are removing the magistrates and taking these powers to the High Court judge because it is a violation of human rights, well and good. If for any reason we will make preferences for magistrates, then it cannot be left to any magistrate. Let us cap the level of a magistrate who can make this decision independently. It cannot be a district or a resident magistrate. If it has to be a magistrate, let it be a magistrate of some level of seniority, maybe a Senior Principal Magistrate and going up so that you do not have anybody admitted as a magistrate even yesterday making a determination on aggression into entry into my property, detonation or the destruction of objects there and the abrogation of my right to property over that issue. I am saying that if we have to move this very serious matter--- It allows forcible entry into a property and infringement of the right to privacy. If we are going to allow magistrates to do it and not judges of the High Court or superior courts, then let us have the level of that magistrate defined in the amendments so that we have a Principal Magistrate going forward, not somebody"
}