Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 689368,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/689368/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 481,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Midiwo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 184,
        "legal_name": "Washington Jakoyo Midiwo",
        "slug": "jakoyo-midiwo"
    },
    "content": "This guidance cannot be “either or”. This is a straightforward matter because the Constitution is explicit. It states that “only the national Government may impose” and you have to do it through Parliament. Nothing stops the legislators who wish this position. This position is what we all wish as people who come from the areas where these products are grown. First, I am contesting the power of the CS, which is unconstitutional. It is put here in this Bill, which seems to say that the CS can do that. The mischief that Hon. Waiganjo is talking about is in the Bill in Clause 68A (1), which states:- “The Cabinet Secretary responsible for finance shall implement tax policies and where appropriate grant remission of duty under the relevant law on alcoholic drinks that are locally manufactured so as to promote compliance of those drinks with the objectives of this Act.” This Bill seems to want to change Articles 209 and 210 of our Constitution, which we cannot allow. That is where the mischief is. You cannot give power which has been taken away by the Constitution. It is not me taking it. That power is not with the CS. Secondly, I come from the area where these crops are grown. Giving that power to the CS will allow remission. The people who are seriously growing these crops are our neighbours in Tanzania. It is very important that we do not participate in an act that hurts our own people. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, I want to ask you. Articles 209 and 210 are not “ifs” or “buts”. Is what I have read okay or wrong?"
}