Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 674815,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/674815/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 161,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Oyugi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 444,
        "legal_name": "Augostinho Neto Oyugi",
        "slug": "augostinho-neto-oyugi"
    },
    "content": "to information under Article 35 of the Constitution. Members of the public ought to know what goes on in the various county assemblies. In fact, the person writes in Clause 25(3) that:- “The right of access to information under Article 35 and freedom of the media under Article 34 of the Constitution shall be limited as specified under this section— (a) for the purposes of facilitating the immunities of the Houses and the committees of a county assembly; (b) for facilitating the freedom of speech and debate as set out in Article 117 of the Constitution.” That is very reckless. You cannot allow a lawmaker to engage in this kind of recklessness. Like I said before, Article 24 of the Constitution speaks to how you can limit fundamental freedoms. You cannot limit it by taking away the core content of that right. This clause is very dangerous. There are several other such provisions and I am happy the Whip of the Majority Party spoke to some of them. Clause 28 speaks to criminal offences that one can commit. There is already legislation that deals with this sort of thing. In a roundabout way, the drafter tries to add more criminal offences which already exist elsewhere. I think that does not really make a lot of sense. Someone already spoke to Clause 32 with regard to defamation. Everyone can say anything they want to say about anybody so long as they can defend it."
}