Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 65360,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/65360/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 224,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, Mr. Olago thought that it was an omission on the part of the Chair not to consider the effect of the ruling of the court after delivering his ruling. It was not. In fact, it was a celebration of the doctrine of separation of powers that both the High Court’s ruling and that of the Speaker were made on the same day, and within hours or minutes of each other without either the Judge of the High Court or the Speaker finding any need to wait and see what the other will rule. Hon. Members, this is as it should be. The two institutions are distinct and separate and have separate constitutional mandates. None is beholden to the other. The final matter which I must address is the point of order raised by Mr. Nyamweya. In answer to Mr. Nyamweya, I wish to advise that it is courteous and good practice, which the Chair will encourage, that any matters arising in Committees be raised, handled and disposed of in the Committees. In fact, to this end, Standing Order No.78 prevents reference in the House to the substance of matters in Committees. Committees are, however, agents of the House. A Member does not lose the right of audience in the House if he or she has a matter which can properly be addressed in the House. I note that in the present case, the guidance sought by Mr. Olago was a matter applying to more than one Committee, and occasioning anxiety in the broader membership of the House. I am, therefore, prepared to find that the action of Mr. Olago was in order, but hasten to add that it should not be seen to create a precedent. Thank you!"
}