Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 590207,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/590207/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 146,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kubai Iringo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1574,
        "legal_name": "Cyprian Kubai Iringo",
        "slug": "cyprian-kubai-iringo"
    },
    "content": "versed in the community’s problems. That is because small cases will always arise between people of the same community, village or clan or between relatives. Therefore, we need an adjudicator who is versed in the issues which affect a particular people so that he has some background information which cannot be measured by the level of education, but by the level of understanding of that community. I feel five years’ experience is too much to ask of an adjudicator. We can have an adjudicator with one or two years’ experience in the practise of law, but has the background of a community, which is very useful in addressing cases. We have removed so many stringent rules like proof of innocence or total proof of a litigant’s claim. Filing a claim orally is welcome because there are people who do not know how to write. Such people can narrate their cases orally. They can say how they are aggrieved and how they would want their cases handled. A court officer will write the case down. This will become cheap. It will save litigants from paying a lot of money to advocates. It will make it easy for a litigant to follow his case. Because of the limitation of having cases submitted orally or being written by somebody else, we need an adjudicator and officers of high moral integrity who are ready to write exactly what is said or to follow what has already been said. There is the use of sign language. It is quite acceptable because we have so many people who are not able to speak and just know sign language. Therefore, for their cases to be done to their satisfaction, they need somebody who can articulate sign language properly to explain exactly the case and the judgement which can be appreciated by the complainant. Hon. Speaker, Clause 29 of the Bill says that proceedings before the court can be conducted by telephone, video tape or any other electronic means. This is a bit tricky because you can prosecute your case on telephone or video tape when nobody sees who talks. We might be going the wrong way. Clause 29 should be looked into critically so that we do not go the wrong direction where somebody will sit in Nairobi and address a court somewhere in the village and people do not know if that is the person addressing the court. I feel that needs to be amended."
}