Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 954510,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/954510/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 202,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "My view is that, since the issue of “omnibus law” is as old as the year 1850, the issue of “omnibus” is not one that offends the practice anywhere in the jurisdictions we compare ourselves with. We have traditions and customs. Our Constitution has not disallowed miscellaneous amendment Bills. I do not think whether we could say it is “unprocedural”. My guide would be that we consider the Bills. Our requirement is under Article 10, among others; Articles 10(2)(a) and 118, which are on public participation. So, when a Bill is published, whether it contains proposals to amend two Acts of Parliament or 10 or 15, what our Constitution requires is that the public is involved. That is why we publicise those Bills in the newspapers. So, I think it is within the power of the House to legislate in terms of Articles 94 and 95. When we are legislating, we should not look over our shoulders save to consider what the letter and spirit of the Constitution and its substance are. There has never been a precedent that says: “Do not use miscellaneous amendment processes”."
}