GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/606682/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 606682,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/606682/?format=api",
"text_counter": 152,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "you are auditing security installations, you must be subjected to some form of vetting so that you will be a person who is reliable in terms of coming and you do not go around doing other things later. Our main concern when we rejected it was that in the original version, it was written in a way which we did not like. This is how it read:- “All staff of the Auditor-General carrying out audit under this section shall undergo a vetting process to be carried out by the appropriate security agencies”. We felt that that appropriate security agency could be construed to mean even that particular agency you are auditing, so that, for example, if you went to audit the KDF, they would want to vet you. It was on those grounds that we rejected it. However, we have now made it clearer. We have agreed that all staff of the Auditor-General carrying out audit, under this Section, shall be vetted by the authorized Government vetting agency. From time to time either the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) or the National Intelligence Service (NIS) normally determine---"
}