Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 844191,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/844191/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 108,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "granted under Article 119 of the Constitution is inalienable, the admissibility of public petitions and consideration thereof is bound by the procedure and practice developed pursuant to Article 124 of the Constitution. Hence, a public petition of the nature contemplated by Hon. Oluoch may not be referred to a committee or committees of the House on the basis of the restraint imposed by Standing Order No.49(1). Hon. Members, as I conclude on this matter, I must emphasise it is a principle of law, which is also applicable to Parliament, in the carrying out its quasi-judicial function, that once a House rejects a report of a committee, that decision effectively renders the relevant committee or committees functus officio upon the report being rejected by the House. Consequently, it would be an exercise in futility to attempt to re-introduce the same matter, be it through the same committee, a select committee or by way of a public petition, as long the parameters remain similar to those of the rejected report. One would wonder, what options does the House have in light of the prevailing circumstances? You will recall that I did refer to a precedent that was set in the 9th Parliament when PAC, upon learning of emergence of fresh evidence contained in the famous “Githongo Dossier” a matter it had investigated and a report thereof rejected by the House, the Committee commenced a fresh inquiry suo moto."
}