Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 619584,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/619584/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 75,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, further moving on to examine the amendments by the hon. Member, what in short he is requesting this House to do is to make observations and recommendations which fundamentally alter the observations and recommendations as presented in the Report that is before this House by the Committee. It is clear from the Report and the remarks of the Committee Chairperson yesterday that no evidence was adduced in the Committee to allege the observations which the Member for Mumias East is now asking the House to make, consider and vote on. This begs the question: On what basis would the House be considering or even confirming those observations and proceed to make recommendations? On the converse, would it not have been prudent for the Committee to apply the provisions of Article 125 to require the attendance of persons before it so as to examine any evidence to support or discharge the claims which are now being offered by the Member for Mumias East? It is my view that allowing the House to involve itself in merely confirming observations that contain fundamental claims that fail the test of examination for validity and authenticity, would be a clear disregard of the very import and the power given to the Committees of this House and the House in Article 125 of the Constitution, to call witnesses before it. Under the provisions of Article 125, the House and its Committees have quasi-judicial authority to exhaustively examine witnesses as the Member would want. In this regard, therefore, I am of the opinion that such amendments ought to have been raised as a substantive Motion for quasi-judicial examination before the Committee, or carried in a minority report to the House. Since the Member also claimed that the amendments relating to his proposed observations are inseparable from the proposed recommendations, both of which the House has not had the benefit of any report, I find that both the purported observations and the consequent proposed recommendations are inadmissible."
}