Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 663587,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/663587/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 90,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Eng.) Gumbo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 24,
        "legal_name": "Nicholas Gumbo",
        "slug": "nicholas-gumbo"
    },
    "content": "officers. When some people see this kind of thing, our reputation comes on the line. I cannot understand how PSC which is the one that provided this information could have allowed very false information to go out there disparaging Members of Parliament, the institution of Parliament and the PAC which I chair when the information is entirely false. The purpose of this point of order is to request you to provide direction. The image of Parliament and Members of Parliament who are leaders of this country is on the line here. We all know that one cannot take an imprest unless they surrender the previous ones. How then can it be possible that an imprest which was apparently taken over a year ago can be considered not surrendered when the statements available within the Accounts Office clearly show everything about the Member in question? Why did the PSC Members not take it upon themselves to clarify that, that was information that was picked at a particular time when some of these Members were out of the country on duty and this matter has been clarified and has since been regularised? Why do we have to walk around looking like irresponsible people who speak about things they do not do when information available suggests to the contrary? I seek your direction. At the very least, the PSC should give a statement to clarify that this information is erroneous, false, and malicious, dents the image of Parliament, unnecessarily dents the image of Members and is unwarranted and uncalled for. Thank you, Hon. Speaker."
}