Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 712329,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/712329/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 332,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Chepkong’a",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1154,
        "legal_name": "Samuel Kiprono Chepkonga",
        "slug": "samuel-kiprono-chepkonga"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, I beg to move: THAT, Clause 30 of the Bill be amended by deleting the word “ninety” wherever it appears and substituting therefor with the word “thirty.” Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, what we are seeking to do through this amendment is quite significant. Whenever a notice of contempt of court proceedings is to be served on, say, a State officer, it is proposed that no proceedings shall be commenced before the expiry of 90 days. We are seeking to reduce the period from 90 days to 30 days. If you want to purge contempt of court, you cannot wait for 90 days, particularly when talking about service delivery. One should be able to respond within 30 days. There is nothing that the State officer should be hiding in Government offices. One should avail whatever documents are required, and be willing to appear in court, so that they can purge any contempt they have been accused of. I do not like what is happening to Principal Secretary Kibicho. He must have forgotten because he must have taken over 90 days to respond. We want such a matter dealt with when it still fresh. That is why we propose that contempt of court proceedings should commence within 30 days of notification of the state officer concerned."
}