Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 63909,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/63909/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 528,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, I have reflected on issue No.3, on whether provisions of the Constitution require the involvement of the Judicial Service Commission in the nomination process of the Chief Justice, and whether going hand in hand with that question, if the Constitution dictates that the process be participatory, competitive and transparent. I have read all the arguments that I could find on the subject. Without going into a lengthy discussion on the matter, I recognize the two contesting argument: The first demanding a participatory, competitive and transparent process that involves the JSC,in terms of Articles 166 and 172, and Sections 24 and 29 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution; and the second, to the effect that the in this transitional period, Articles 166 and 172 of the Constitution have no application. Considering all the circumstances, and in particular, Article 259(1), I am personally more persuaded by the first interpretation that entails an open and transparent process that involves the JSC. Considering the history of our country and the reasons why we have adopted a new Constitution, I find the argument that there should be lower constitutional standards during this delicate period of transition and implementation of the Constitution to be untenable. I have, as a matter of fact, not been able to find any language in the Constitution excluding either expressly or by necessary implication, the application of Article 10 or Article 73 of the Constitution to the nomination of the Chief Justice, or the other three offices."
}