Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 621826,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/621826/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 76,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "because you noticed that when the Senate Minority Leader rose for the first time, he indicated that he spoke to the Clerks-At-the-Table who had told him that he could ride on it. This appeared to me that he was not clear. He also understood that it is not the normal Statement to seek and that Members can ride on it. The Senate Minority Leader is a longstanding experienced Member of Parliament. If it was directed as you make it appear, the Senate Minority Leader would not have approached the Clerks-At-the-Table to ask for direction because he could have ridden on the Statement like we always do. The fact that he raised the issue with the Clerks-At-the- Table appears to me that you cannot quote the precedence that has happened in the past. As correctly put, when I allowed Sen. (Prof.) Anyang’-Nyong’o to raise the issue, I knew that under Standing Order No. 90, it was not going to be an easy debate. Sen. (Prof.) Anyang’-Nyong’o was not seeking a statement to be ridden on, but he made it within the ambits of the directions I gave him when he commenced to give the statement. When he mentioned the name of the President, he respected and acquainted himself well. It is a unique statement that he made and depending on who is interpreting - I have done my interpretation under Standing Order No. 45(4) - the Senator referred to in (4) could be any Senator according to you. However, according to me, it is the Senator making the statement. Therefore, for me and without being argumentative, that is my direction on this matter. Sen. (Prof.) Anyang’-Nyong’o was careful because he could not come under a Motion of Adjournment, but he could have tried that and would have allocated time to debate it on a Motion of Adjournment. He did not do it, but he chose the path he chose and neither was he making a Personal Statement. As such, I have given the direction. However, it could be dynamic in the sense that when it comes to tomorrow, a different Chair may make a different ruling. For now, it would be futile to try because you are not coming under review, but instead you are asking me to look at the ruling I have made. Therefore, I have no reason at all to change it."
}