HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 939724,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/939724/?format=api",
"text_counter": 122,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Hon. Members, I wish to make this Communication as I promised earlier. As you are aware, in the afternoon Sitting of yesterday, Tuesday, November 5, 2019, this House passed the Finance Bill (National Assembly Bill No.51 of 2019) for a second time, following referral by His Excellency the President in terms of Article 115 (1) (b) of the Constitution. Following that decision, my attention has been drawn to certain insinuations from Members of the House and from outside the House. The statements are to the effect that sufficient notice was not given with regard to the day on which the President’s reservations on the Finance Bill (National Assembly Bill No.51 of 2019) would be considered by the House and that Members were not afforded sufficient time to lobby themselves to garner the threshold necessary to vote so as to reject the President’s reservations on the said Bill. Hon. Members, on the first claim, may I remind the House and the general public that Standing Order 154 (2) of the National Assembly Standing Orders requires the House to re- consider and conclude a Bill referred back by the President within 21 days following conveyance by the Speaker of a Message from the President to that effect. So as to refresh the minds of Members, on Thursday, October 17, 2019, I did convey to this House a Message from the President communicating his refusal to assent to the Finance Bill (National Assembly Bill No.51 of 2019). Thereafter, I committed the President’s Memorandum containing his reservations on the Bill to the Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning for consideration. The Committee considered the Memorandum and tabled a Report thereof last week on Tuesday, October 29, 2019. The Committee recommended that the House agrees with the President’s reservations, save for the amendment to insert a New Clause with the import of saving the existing loans from any negative effects of repeal of section 33B of the Banking Act, 2016. With regard to the claim of sufficiency of notification, you may recall that during the afternoon Sitting of Wednesday, October 30, 2019, the Leader of the Majority Party, in his Statement to the House under Standing Order 44 (2) (c) regarding business for the subsequent week, notified the House that the specific Bill was scheduled for consideration on Tuesday, November 5, 2019. As a matter of fact, the Order Paper for that particular Sitting had a Notice Paper to that effect. My count of days indicate that the House and the general public had, at least, a six-day notice of the coming up of the matter for consideration. Moreover, pursuant to Standing Order 38, the Clerk of the National Assembly prepared and published on the Parliament Website the Order Paper for Tuesday, November 5, 2019 on the evening of Friday, November 1, 2019, being four days prior to the material day. As you may all contend, it is a matter of public notoriety that both the print and electronic media have on numerous occasions highlighted that the matter would be coming up for consideration by this House on Tuesday, November 5, 2019. I, therefore, find it to be absolutely inaccurate for a Member of this House or even the public to claim that there was no sufficient The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. Acertified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}