GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/98724/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 98724,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/98724/?format=api",
"text_counter": 405,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Michuki",
"speaker_title": "The Minister for Environment and Mineral Resources",
"speaker": {
"id": 183,
"legal_name": "John Njoroge Michuki",
"slug": "john-michuki"
},
"content": "â(i) proceed upon a Bill including an amendment so that the Bill in the opinion of the person presiding makes provision for any of the following purposes---â The purposes are stated. Therefore, is it in order that even this debate should proceed when in fact, the whole section is infringed, even though there is a misleading statement that there is no financial implication when an institute will probably cost millions of shillings? Is it sufficient for the Mover just to say that there will not be implication and the House just takes it like that when the Constitution is very clear towards the Chair about what the House should do?"
}