Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 948884,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/948884/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 79,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Atandi, I think, on the first question, anybody appearing on behalf of a Cabinet Secretaries should be asked whether they have full authority to commit the ministry. If they appear not to have such authority, then you throw them away. You have no business listening to a person who is not going to commit. The reason we created the Committee on Implementation is to follow up on undertakings by Government. When the House has recommended in a particular way or when a CS or any government official appears before a committee and commits, it must be taken that, that is what the ministry stands for and there should be a follow-up mechanism. If a person appears and makes some commitment, then that should be taken to the Committee on Implementation to follow up. It is just assumed, if the ministry sends whomever it sends… What do you call them? CAS? It is not like KASS FM? If they appear, they must be asked whether they have full authority to make commitments on behalf of the ministries that they purport to represent or appear to represent. If they answer in the negative, then the committee cannot engage with people who are not capable of committing themselves. If they make commitments, then there can be follow-up and if what they have committed to is not done, then there could be sanctions. That is the way it should be. That is why I think we should encourage the chairpersons of committees to be firm when they are dealing with whoever it is that appears before you. I can see there is a point of order by the Member for Ainabkoi."
}