Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 619122,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/619122/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 326,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Prof.) Nyikal",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 434,
        "legal_name": "James Nyikal",
        "slug": "james-nyikal"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Speaker, please assure me that I will get an opportunity to debate the Motion as amended. I do not support the amendment as it is because I would like to move a further amendment, if the Mover agrees. I have seen throughout the debate that there was confusion within the Judiciary and the establishment of this committee threw further problems and marred the distinct functions between the CJ and the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary. This committee was working and the members were commissioners. If we remove this as suggested by the amendment then they go scot-free. I agree with Hon. Chepkong’a’s statement that the investigation should be limited to the period covered by this Report, but we should investigate what happened with this committee. In my view, it caused more problems than any other issue that has been raised in this Report. It blurred the distinction of roles. Many instructions would have come from this committee that the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary acted on. If they go scot-free then nobody takes responsibility. The members of the committee will not take responsibility, the CJ will not take responsibility and the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary will not take responsibility. So, if the House agrees, we should retain it but further amend it as it is under Recommendation No.20 to be limited to the period covered by the Report. That way, those who have worked outside that period are safe."
}