Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 596398,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/596398/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 197,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Chairman, Sir, being a renowned lawyer, you know about the golden rule of interpretation; that the law shall be interpreted in the most logical form unless that form can lead to an absurdity. This is what an absurdity is. There is a word which I think, we, as the Senate, and this is one moment when the Senate is now required to lead this country and speak the law, not partisan politics. I have bothered to look at the dictionary in my phone; the word “reconsideration” in Article 115(1)(b) in my own reading - forget about reservations, the one that Sen. Wetangula has spoken to, that this memorandum is not actually a reservation. The word “reconsideration” would mean a review; what you and I used to do in court. The review would mean that you cannot introduce a new issue that was not there before. You reconsider, which means that if Clause 10 is unconstitutional, the President would say; Clause 10 contradicts Article 20, contradicts another law or would lead to an injustice, not another clause. That would not be reconsideration. Mr. Chairman, Sir, we are calling upon you because this objection was supposed to be raised today. That the word “reconsideration” in this Constitution is not a coincidence; it is not a term in English, it is a legal term which presupposes that our role when there is a reservation is to reconsider our previous position. Now, when you have a new clause, what are you reconsidering? When you have a new clause from the President, you are actually considering his proposal and not reconsidering what you have passed. To that extent, it would be unconstitutional to have a new clause in a memorandum because that would not be reconsideration; it would be a consideration. Mr. Chairman, Sir, if you do not give direction on this – and your ruling will be read for years and years to come, you will lead to what the golden rule of interpretation was trying to stop. A memorandum of this nature purporting that it is coming for reconsideration would lead to an absurdity of the word “reconsideration.” That is why in Article 115(2)(a) and (b), the wisdom of the drafters of this Constitution when they said; “amend the Bill in light of the President’s reservation”, not amend the Bill in light of the President’s new clauses. “Pass the Bill a Second time without amendments,” presupposes that the President should have returned the Bill the way it is. The most he can do in the clause is do a highlight - the way you would highlight a document; bold and underline and say; please, consider this clause again because that clause would contradict the laws of this country. I urge you to consider."
}