Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 784324,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/784324/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 148,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13465,
        "legal_name": "Paul Otiende Amollo",
        "slug": "paul-otiende-amollo"
    },
    "content": "Clause 31 of this Bill does something strange. It allows anybody who feels offended to appeal either to the High Court or to the Court of Appeal. There are three things about that. First of all, it is not necessary to have such provisions in this Bill because they are already in the Constitution. Secondly, it excludes what usually is the avenue for challenge, that is, what we call judicial review, not appeal. Judicial review is preserved by Article 50(2) (q). More importantly, it strangely seeks to allow somebody to appeal from a magistrate’s court to the Court of Appeal, and that does not exist in any other legislation. It does not distinguish whether, therefore, you go to the High Court or to the Court of Appeal. It gives you the discretion to go to either. Such concurrent jurisdiction can create immense confusion."
}