Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 775667,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/775667/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 269,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kajwang’",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2712,
        "legal_name": "Tom Joseph Kajwang'",
        "slug": "kajwang-tom-joseph-francis"
    },
    "content": "In the subsequent clause towards the end, it is saying that counties will have authority over the national trunk roads. I think that is a wrong concept. There must be an arrangement between the county and the national roads, so that we make money out of these things. We need that money for the maintenance of the roads and to raise the levies. There is something which the Chairman has just said which is on Clause 14. I beg to differ. In fact, I was one of the Members who underlined Clause 14(2)(f)(iii). I am asking what law has to do with roads. Why are we looking for lawyers to sit in boards everywhere? This is the same thing he was saying. I wanted to suggest that we look elsewhere for other disciplines, but he got it wrong. He said that we do away with all these institutions and we only remain with two institutions, and then the two institutions are appointed by the CS. That is not correct because Clause 14(2)(a), (b), (c) and (d) are already employees from the Executive. If the CS brings two more, what you have done is just to increase to Clause 14(2) to (e) and (f) for the same Executive. If I can jog your memory, the reason we went into institutions was to put roads sector infrastructure in the hands of the private sector. We wanted private sector participation. You can think of all formulas of getting the private sector. I do not begrudge you. I can debate whether we can get this from the churches or elsewhere."
}