Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 884153,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/884153/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 55,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "that the House chanted “Shame! Shame!” indicating that the House was nearly of the unanimous view that Hon. Gor Sungu was improperly dressed. Before ordering Hon. Sungu to withdraw from the Chamber, the Speaker is on record stating as follows– “Order! Mr. Sungu, you can hear the displeasure of the House. I obey the command of the House. If your sight displeases the House, it is my duty to remove your sight out of the House…” The Chair goes by the will of the House. Once the House disapproves, I have no choice. I am a servant of the House.” On the question of a Muslim kanzu, my predecessors have ruled that being a universally recognised formal, albeit religious dress, the kanzu is acceptable within the rules governing dress in this House, provided that a Member wearing a kanzu also wears a coat as an outer garment. I have no intention of revisiting this established practice and tradition. As to the question of admissibility of African male attire, those who have served in previous Parliaments would recall that the matter has come up several times. I have isolated a case involving the then Member for Subukia, Hon. Koigi wa Wamwere. On 10th July 2003, Hon. Wamwere entered the House dressed in smart African attire. This prompted the then Member for North Horr, the late Hon. (Dr.) Bonaya Godana, to seek the interpretation of the Chair as to whether Hon. Wamwere was properly dressed. The Speaker determined that decent as he may have been, the Member was not properly dressed. May I also remind the House that the Chair is not oblivious of the progressive attempts that the Ministry of Culture made in 2004 to have Kenya’s national dress with an African theme that epitomizes the country’s cultural dressing diversity. As facts stand now, the envisioned Kenyan national dress remains work in progress. Much as Hon. Otiende Amollo alluded to inalienability of the right to conscience, religion and culture under Chapter Four of the Constitution of Kenya, it ought not to be lost that for the case of Parliament, these entitlements must be construed to preserve our sartorial standards and ensure decency in the House. I am, therefore, constrained from granting latitude to male Members to dress in what they would consider to be African or national dress. The Leader of the Majority Party seemed to be inviting the Chair to make a finding that nominated Member Hon. David Sankok’s manner of dressing, particularly his choice to don national colours, is outside the ambit of Rule 8 of the Speaker’s Rules. However, the Member still dons a coat, long-sleeved shirt, a tie, long trousers and shoes. I do not intend to belabour to prescribe the colour, shape and design of suits won by Members. That is a matter of personal choice and taste. But that notwithstanding, should the Chair establish that the nature and colour of the said dress is intended to crusade or advertise a certain course, he would not hesitate to make a determination. Allow me to briefly share with the House the application of rules relating to dress code in selected jurisdictions. First, in the United Kingdom’s House of Commons, from where the practice in Kenya was heavily borrowed, Rule 23 on dress provides that–"
}