Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 942616,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/942616/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 190,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Seme, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) James Nyikal",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 434,
        "legal_name": "James Nyikal",
        "slug": "james-nyikal"
    },
    "content": "reported back and discussed in the county assembly. That is different from what we do here. Petitions are not discussed in plenary except in few occasions. That is good. It takes into consideration the fact that there are other bodies that actually resolve issues. So, when a petition is taken to a county assembly, other bodies will have been involved if the matter was to be solved at that level, including whether those matters have gone to court. So, I think this is a good effort. Clause 5 says exactly what the clerk and the speaker should do, and how it is reported back to the assembly. This will go a long way in giving our people in the counties opportunities to express themselves through petitions without having to look here. Some of the petitions that we handle here should be handled elsewhere. Clause 7 (2) seeks to harmonise Article 15 of the County Governments Act. That comes out very well. Whereas the County Governments Act indicated that each county will do it in their own way, the Bill seeks to harmonise so that all counties will use this as a guideline. This is not robbing the counties of the opportunity to do their own things, but actually gives a guideline. I do not see anything that will stop the counties from using their Standing Orders to make sure that the petitions are handled in a way that is peculiar to them, but still within the law. With that, I support this Bill."
}