Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 789212,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/789212/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 171,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Dr.) Nyikal",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 434,
        "legal_name": "James Nyikal",
        "slug": "james-nyikal"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity. I initially wanted to support this Motion but I will oppose it in its amended form. I do not understand why we want to delete Recommendation No.(iii) while Recommendation No. (i) also talks about what has transpired in court. I would like to hear this because I seek your guidance. Recommendation No.(i) reads that they cannot proceed because of what is in court. Recommendation No.(ii) states the same thing. The only difference is that Recommendation No.(iii) uses the word “ sub judice ”. Recommendation No. (iii) starts by stating: “Subject to Standing Order No.89…”. My understanding would then be that if we are removing it because of the word “ sub judice ”, we must expunge or say something about Standing Order No.89. Recommendation No.(iii) is based on Standing Order No.89."
}