Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 591801,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/591801/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 313,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kaluma",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1565,
        "legal_name": "George Peter Opondo Kaluma",
        "slug": "george-peter-opondo-kaluma"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, for giving me this opportunity. I support the deletion of this provision on two accounts. If you look at sub-clause 2 of the proposed Clause 36 of the Bill, it gives the idea that the DPP may be compelled to act on the directions of other officers within Parliament, and that is outright unconstitutional. The Office of the DPP is an independent office under the Constitution. It serves not under the directions of anybody and it would be a dangerous precedent to start. That is how we will be introducing other bodies also being able to direct that Office. In sub-clause 1, in fact, if you look at the provision where an offence is suspected to have been committed under this Act, the relevant Clerk shall, on the directions of the relevant Speaker--- Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, I have two reservations. Whose duty is it to suspect this offence and why are we limiting people who can suspect an offence and take information to those particular offices we are mentioning? This should be left open. We have institutions dealing with those matters. These are provisions we do not need. We have the Powers and Privileges Committee. Let the Committee deal with those issues without giving administrative offices such powers which can be abused."
}