GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/961459/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 961459,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/961459/?format=api",
"text_counter": 299,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
"speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo",
"speaker": {
"id": 13465,
"legal_name": "Paul Otiende Amollo",
"slug": "paul-otiende-amollo"
},
"content": " Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, with respect, I think there is confusion in the contributions. I hear all that the Members have said about the sweeping powers of the Director-General. What they are doing is not to create accountability. Instead, it is now to take those sweeping powers to the Cabinet Secretary, who will not participate in the process at all. In essence, it creates a worse situation. First of all, the entire Bill has placed a lot of power in the Director-General who, like the IEBC, will essentially be controlling the exercise. The thinking was that if you create that power and independence, then that person should have a fundamental say. Secondly, what the amendment is doing is to say “on the recommendation of the board” without saying how that board is to be initiated yet the Director-General is part of it. Thirdly, it now gives it to the Cabinet Secretary, who may have no idea at all. I think the amendment is trying to solve a problem by creating a bigger one. If the Mover is in agreement, it will be okay to leave the original provisions as they are and say, “the Director-General may, with the approval of the board and ratification by the Cabinet”. This is because it must come from him, so that when the Cabinet is considering the report, there is information. Otherwise, the Cabinet Secretary could act in a worse manner than the Director-General. That is the only reason I do not support the amendment."
}