Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 604889,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/604889/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 601,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Abdalla",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 382,
        "legal_name": "Amina Ali Abdalla",
        "slug": "amina-abdalla"
    },
    "content": "There is a great fear that if this Bill is not passed as soon as possible, the transactions that will have taken place between August 2015 and the time this Bill will commence will be brought to doubt. So, there is some urgency for this Bill to be passed. The Constitution requires that we pass this Bill within five years. If not, transactions done before the August 2015 constitutional deadline are covered by the Constitution and this Bill, but those that are done beyond the August 2015 deadline are a problem. So, this Bill is very urgent. I can understand the time the drafters of this Bill took to bring it to the House. The fact that it is a negotiated Bill has ended up excluding some items that need ratification by the House. It has also brought a big question to this House. Since the Constitution does not acknowledge parliamentary approval and expect parliamentary ratification of these instruments, does it mean we amend all the statutes that we have so far passed that call for parliamentary approval and not ratification? For example, the Schedule to this Bill says that long term concessions of forests are part of the classes of natural resources transactions that must be ratified by Parliament. It also talks of excision or change of boundaries of wildlife parks. In the Forest Bill, the change of a forest boundary or relocation of wildlife requires parliamentary approval and yet in this Bill relocation of wildlife requires ratification while the change of forest boundary is excluded."
}