Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 604893,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/604893/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 605,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Abdalla",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 382,
        "legal_name": "Amina Ali Abdalla",
        "slug": "amina-abdalla"
    },
    "content": "Under the Schedule, it gives a list of transactions that are subject to ratification. Under the Wildlife Management and Conservation Bill, if you were to change the boundaries of a national park, the Cabinet Secretary (CS) proposes but it can only happen with the approval of the House and yet it is on this Bill. Under the Forest Management Act, the same is the case for situations where you want to change the boundaries of a forest reserve, and yet it is not part of this Bill. Therefore, the question that it is begging is: Do we go back to all the natural resources transactions that require parliamentary approval and make them ratification or we list them in this schedule so that we are inclusive? The latter is more laborious. In the past, concessions of forest lands for private management were not part of our Statute. So, even the court rejected a concession that the Kenya Forest Service wanted to enter into because of that reason. So, I am concerned about the transactions that have been left out in the Schedule that require parliamentary approval and involve natural resources. Therefore, do we change our Statute that call for parliamentary approval in the change of management of natural resources, such as, national parks and forest reserve, to read “ratification” or do we put the list here? That is the issue as a committee we have grappled with."
}