Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 833689,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/833689/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 308,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Wako",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 366,
        "legal_name": "Amos Sitswila Wako",
        "slug": "amos-wako"
    },
    "content": "attach any letters, affidavits or other documents. To me, confidentiality ought to be given particular regard in the matters that have been concluded. If the decision was on a piece of paper and the petitioner regards that as unsatisfactory, the easiest way would be to attach a certified copy of that decision to the petition so that it is clear. Again, the petitioner could say they are not happy with the copy and give reasons. If the matter is pending before a court of law or other constitutional body, there must be something filed in that constitutional court. The document filed in court should be attached to the petition to make it easier for MCAs who will be looking at it. It should be easier for them to determine the decision of the relevant body and the grounds that a petitioner could claim are unsatisfactory. What I am trying to say is that the petitioners should not just say that the matters were addressed by a relevant body and are unsatisfactory. They should give reasons and in doing so, it is useful to attach a copy of that decision. It is not just enough for somebody to say they filed a matter and it is pending before a court of law. It is better to also attach the decision so that people can see for themselves what is pending before the court. Still on the issue of a matter pending before a court of law, I think that may have warranted a separate paragraph altogether. Maybe we should say that a petition should not be about a matter pending before a court of law. The petitioner should state whether it is pending before a court of law but we are not told the consequences of that. All we are told under Clause 4 is that:- “A petition to a county assembly shall be– (a) submitted to the respective Clerk by the petitioner; or (b) presented by a member of the county assembly on behalf of a petitioner, with the consent of the Speaker.” This means that the respective Clerk should be satisfied with the provisions in Clause 3 before stating that the petition is in order. A matter could be pending in a court of law whereas we know that if a matter is pending before a court, it should not be the subject of the petition. So, to make it clear, there should be a paragraph which says that if a matter is pending before a court of law, somebody cannot petition, so that they are stopped from the beginning. With this Clause as it is, a matter can be taken forward but since the Clerk has no discretion to say that because a matter is pending before a court, it is not in order. This is because the Clerk is supposed to look at various paragraphs under Clause 3 and if they are satisfied, then they will go ahead to okay it. So, that is a matter that should be considered again."
}