Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 789208,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/789208/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 167,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, you know this is an amendment before we can move to the Report. If we take the route that now I see many contributors taking, you will now go to the substantive Motion. Hon. Members, remember the Motion merely seeks to delete Recommendation No. (iii) which makes reference to the matter of sub judice, but allows the House to debate the Motion. I wish that many of the Members here had cared to read some judgement delivered by the Supreme Court on 15th December, 2017 on the need for courts to exercise great caution in issuing injunctions against other institutions and arms of Government. This is especially when they are handling processes which are time-bound, either by statute or the Constitution. The Supreme Court really expounded on the need for the lower courts, the High Court and the Court of Appeal to exercise caution and restraint in issuing injunctions or stopping processes which are statutory-bound or time-bound, because you then cripple other arms or institutions. Nevertheless, so that we can deal with the main Motion, we should not take time on the proposed amendments. Let me put the Question so that you can make a decision, one way or another then we go back to the main Motion."
}