Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 627810,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/627810/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 81,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Wamatangi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 646,
        "legal_name": "Paul Kimani Wamatangi",
        "slug": "paul-kimani-wamatangi"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Sir. The matter that has been raised by Sen. Kembi-Gitura is a matter similar to several other matters that are pending before the Committee on Public Accounts and Investment. This Committee is as of now still in limbo because it has been unable to transact its business after the ouster of the duly then elected Chairman. Since the pending business and especially the one that has been raised by the Senator for Murang’a is important business for this House, this country and for what we stand for, I seek your direction on this issue because this Committee requires to get to work as soon as possible. The most fundamental issue that I would want to be addressed by the point of order that I have raised is that, following what has happened in this case, and this is a House that relies and operates on precedence, does it imply that in future, if any side of this House is unhappy with the goings on inside a committee, it means that the committee can be rendered in-operational or dysfunctional by the simple act of de-whipping a sitting Chairman? Even after the business of this Committee has been reinstated, there is another occurrence where there will be a case that, maybe, one side of the House is unhappy with, then the only thing they would do to render that Committee dysfunctional is to de-whip the Chairman and then the Committee cannot sit. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I seek your indulgence; does it mean the committee becomes dysfunctional by the action of de-whipping of a Chairman? Does it require that the Committee continues with its business with the existing Members who are from both sides of the House? It is dangerous because what will happen is that if at any one time with this precedence, I would ever find myself or any other Members on the side where we carry the mandate to de-whip a chairperson, then that would be the easiest route to make sure that any business that may not please me inside that Committee can be executed by the simple act of taking the letter to be received, stamped and that Committee can sit in limbo. Is this the precedence?"
}