Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 610276,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/610276/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 249,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Gikaria",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2489,
        "legal_name": "David Gikaria",
        "slug": "david-gikaria"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker for giving me this opportunity. First, I want to thank hon. Gumbo for bringing up this Motion. One of the things that we need to start asking ourselves, as we look at this issue, is the reason why it was brought up and taken to the courts. Parliament did not take a lot of interest. This was to an extent that, I am told, lawyers who were representing the Board were not as competent as they should have been. Now I hear some of the Members saying that we are even ready to contribute money, so that we can get competent lawyers who can defend us in the Court of Appeal. As Parliamentarians, we should not be taking things lightly when they are brought up, only to start lamenting once decisions are given by the courts. It is important for us to start thinking; if, indeed, the Board is going to appeal, how can Parliament chip in by getting lawyers to represent it? There were names of some very prominent lawyers which were suggested. Secondly, it is about the Judiciary. Recently, the Minority Party went to court regarding the security laws. They wanted the whole Act to be termed unconstitutional. The Bench that was picked by the Chief Justice looked at what they were asking and picked only those unconstitutional clauses in that Act. The court ruled that they were not going to outlaw the Act, but they were going to state what sections needed further scrutiny, so that we could look into them. The court needed to have checked the CDF Act, identified the unconstitutional sections, so that we could start addressing only their unconstitutionality. That way, we would have been in a better position instead of just giving a blanket ruling that the whole Act is unconstitutional. I hope that sooner or later, once we go to court, we will argue and hopefully get good lawyers. Thirdly, it is about the CDF. About 80 per cent of the Members of this Houses are first timers. At least, I was a councillor, and this is my first time as a Member of Parliament. If, indeed, 80 per cent of the Members of Parliament do not come back to Parliament, then the Judiciary needs to know that CDF does not help Members of Parliament. I came here when I never had the CDF; but I was elected in my constituency. The Judiciary needs to be told that CDF has nothing to do with Members of Parliament. At the same time, Members of Parliament also need to be a little bit careful. Recently, I was listening to a Member of Parliament on what the Speaker calls “talk shows”. He was saying that in his position as a Member of Parliament, he had done certain projects using The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}