Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 822348,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/822348/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 260,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "South Mugirango, KNC",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Silvanus Onyiego",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1417,
        "legal_name": "Silvanus Osoro Onyiego",
        "slug": "silvanus-osoro-onyiego"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I equally rise to oppose this report. It is very important not to allow ourselves as Members of Parliament to be used, just like one of my colleagues mentioned. Going by the Report, the vagueness it displays, right from the content all through to the recommendations, shows clearly that the Committee did not understand the question that was raised earlier. You notice that the Committee questioned various CSs who gave all right channelled answers. They questioned the CS for Interior, the CS for Agriculture and the CS for Trade and they all agreed that there was an issue in regard to the sugar in this country. Then there was an Executive Order by His Excellency the President and they all agreed that we needed to allow importation of sugar. This brought forth Gazette Notice 4536. All the other Gazette notices are extensions of Gazette Notice 4536 that arose out of a collective Cabinet agreement. It will be wrong for us to write a report and then recommend the opposite of what the Report has. The Report does not seem to answer the question of contaminated sugar. The Report does not seem to answer the question of who should be held culpable individually. It will actually be very shocking to notice that even Recommendation 5.1 is so ambiguous to read. They are saying that all sugar that does not comply with the set standards…. What were they finding out? How do you say all sugar? It is too open. They should have told us specifically that this type of sugar of this number of kilos has issues and should be declared unfit for human consumption, not just saying generally that all sugar. Which sugar? What were they investigating? They equally say that CS Rotich should be investigated on Gazette Notice 9801. Then they go back and say that in their Report Gazette Notice 9801 came about out of an advice from the CS for Agriculture. Then they now want authorities to investigate CS for Agriculture on surveillance and not on the instructions he gave to the CS for National Treasury. This is witch- hunt. This is nothing. The Committee ought to have done a good job and not jump up and down and allowing themselves to be used to settle political scores. We should not allow Members of this House to be used in any way by some political masters. We understand the handshake is real but it should not be used to replace very competent Government officials like CS Rotich and CS Adan. We should not allow that. On that note, I oppose the Report."
}