Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 653286,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/653286/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 711,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Eng.) Gumbo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 24,
        "legal_name": "Nicholas Gumbo",
        "slug": "nicholas-gumbo"
    },
    "content": "On a point of order, Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady. I do not know the rationale for the Chair moving this amendment. This, to me, is a fairly serious offence. My understanding is that the penalty should be as punitive as possible. By saying “not more than one million shillings”, it can even be Kshs5, Kshs10, or for free. I do not know why the Chair does not see it necessary to put a minimum fine. I know traditionally, we have been using the words “not more than” and then we make a discretionary for the judge or magistrate to give the sentence. This amendment states: “A person who, unless authorized, opens, breaks, alters or anyway interferes with a lock, seal, mark or other fastening placed by a committee, officer, employee or agent in accordance with the provisions of this section on any building room, place, receptacle, item or plant, goods or materials, commits an offence.” This for me is really a fairly serious offence. I had wished if the Chair could just explain why he does not think it necessary to put in a minimum sentence, instead of leaving it at the discretionary of the judge or magistrate."
}