Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 796340,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/796340/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 337,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Wamunyinyi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 291,
        "legal_name": "Athanas Misiko Wafula Wamunyinyi",
        "slug": "athanas-wamunyinyi"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman. I think I should start by advising, for free, my brother, Hon. Didmus Barasa. We do not have laymen in the House and the Leader of the Majority Party can never be a layman. He is a senior legislator here. Didmus should learn. I know he was elected for the first time and he is learning, but I think he should speed up his learning, so that he can understand that there are no laymen in the House. We only have legislators. I am a member of the Departmental Committee in charge of security, but I have been wondering and having an afterthought. What the chairman seeks to delete is as follows: “Where a computer system or data has been removed or rendered inaccessible following a search or seizure under section 23, the person who made the search shall at the time of the search or as soon as practicable after the search- (a) make a list of what has been seized or rendered inaccessible, and shall specify the date and time of the seizure; and; (b) provide a copy of a list to the occupier of the premises or the person in control of the computer system referred to under paragraph (a).” The other bit he is trying to delete is sub clause (4), which states: “Despite subsection (3), a court may, on reasonable grounds being disclosed, allow a person who has qualified under subsection (2)(a) or (b)— (a) access and copy computer data on the system; or (b) obtain a copy of the computer data.” Having looked at this again, I do not see how this injures anything. Why is it being deleted? How is it injurious? How does this injure the administration of the law? For this reason, because I do not see how offensive it is, I oppose this proposed amendment."
}