Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 720578,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/720578/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 173,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. A.B. Duale: Hon. A.B. Duale",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 15,
        "legal_name": "Aden Bare Duale",
        "slug": "aden-duale"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, I beg to move: THAT, clause 47 of the Bill be amended− (b) in Sub clause (3) by deleting the words “three nominees for every position” and substituting therefor the words “a list of nominees”; and, The Justification is that the amendment further seeks to eliminate the actual number of nominees for appointment to be submitted to the President. This is because in certain instances the Commission may have more than three nominees who may be eligible for appointment and further the Commission may present the actual number of nominees. What I am trying to say is that when you limit the number of nominees at three, the essence of corruption comes in. The commissioners can sit and agree on one, two, three persons, but if you give the appointing authority a list of nominees, then he can use a better rationale in looking at factors such as regional balance and gender. What happens if the fourth or fifth person had the same marks as the third person? Just because you have been told to submit three names you have to submit the three names. So, I am opening the list. In Sub Clause 4, I am deleting the words “for the rejected position or positions”. The amendment seeks to eliminate the repetition as currently stated in the Bill. It is, therefore, for purposes of clarity. The second one is to make clarifications to ensure that the Commission submits, to the President, a list of nominees already interviewed by the Commission. However, the first one is fundamental."
}