Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 785548,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/785548/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 27,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, this is a very straightforward matter and is not complicated at all. I did receive a general letter, not quoting any Standing Order on which it was meant. It was a letter just like any other that could come from every villager. There are very many such like letters that come to my office. Kenyans write requesting all manner of things, but obviously, they cannot, unless they do so by way of a petition see the light of day. We just reply to them advising them to give those concerns to their respective Members of Parliament who would in turn raise it on the Floor of the House. With respect to your letter, because it is just a letter and not a Motion, the staff tried to look for you to give you my comments concerning what I could make out of the letter. It was just a letter written based not on anything and then the staff kindly came to the office and told me: “If you are looking for the Member to give him this communication, if you watched on television, that is the Member, he is in court. So, he wants to deal with the matter both in Parliament and in court.” Obviously, you chose to go and deal with the matter there. Which is a clear indication that, indeed, debate on that matter would obviously be infringing on the rule of sub-judice since indeed, dressed in the manner that you were, I was able to identify that this is Hon. Okelo participating in there. So, nobody could communicate with you because the intention was, if there are any aspects of that matter which could not infringe on the s ub-judice rule, then we would advise you to reframe that request and make it an application under Standing Order 33. But then you were not available because you were busy also prosecuting it in the other forum. So, you see, you chose that forum in place of this one. The staff were going to advise you on how you would navigate it without… We wanted to discuss with you and see whether there is a way that you could reframe your request under Standing Order 33, without offending the sub-judice rule. Since you were not there and it is not my business to try and know what is on your mind, whether what you were going to say was going to offend the rule of s ub-judice because the matter is obviously active and alive in court, nobody made a decision safe to say: return to sender (RTS) in the manner that it was brought to me. So, that is the long and short. We make nothing out of it, again, if you look at that Standing Order… The reason why the staff were looking for you is to try and bring you within the hours because a request under Standing Order 33 would require that you bring the matter two hours before, but unfortunately, we were seeing you enjoying prosecuting the matter elsewhere. The matter now stands ‘RTS’. So we make nothing out of it. There is nothing to debate. There is nothing out of order out of my communication. The rules of this place are different from those of the other place."
}