Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 563212,
    "url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/563212/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 218,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Dr.) Kibunguchy",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 294,
        "legal_name": "Enoch Wamalwa Kibunguchy",
        "slug": "enoch-kibunguchy"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. Let me start my contribution at the end, as I pose two questions before I go into other areas. At the outset, I support the Bill. The two questions that I would like to pose - and I can see my good friend, Hon. Kamama, is here - are as follows:- (i) Is it that the Committee that has interrogated the Bill did not want to confront the whole concept of licensing our guards and watchmen to carry guns? As it has been observed - and as we see everywhere – the watchmen are like sitting ducks. They are doing a job in a world where criminals and thieves are well armed. Is it that the Committee was afraid to tackle this issue or not? If we are all playing in the same field, the guards and crooks should use the same equipment. (ii) The second question should be at the tail-end because the time is not much. The Bill is really concerned about private security providers; namely, companies that provide private security. But have we really looked into the aspect of an individual watchman as recommended by a family member or a friend, that he is a nice man and can be a watchman, as we know them at home? They are not coming from any private security firm? Has their welfare been catered for in this Bill? I do not see it very well. We need to do that because on average, that is the bulk of the watchmen and the people who guard us at home when we are fast asleep. If we have to deal with their welfare, we need to start looking at the individual and not very much the firm. This Bill really concentrates on the firm, but what about the individual? It is a good Bill because it is bringing hygiene into the whole concept of private security. We are having a situation where there will be an authority to look into the standards, registration and training in those private firms. Recently, we read in the newspapers about two cases that I would like to mention. One, a young man, a guard, was mauled by very fierce dogs somewhere in Nairobi. We have also heard of other circumstances where watchmen and guards turn against the very people they are watching after becoming criminals. This Bill is trying to bring sanity in the whole concept of private security and I agree with it. The other aspect that we should really emphasise is that all those private guards should have some form of insurance so that, if anything happens to them, that insurance can take care of their families, just like it is happening at the National Police Service. For example, the family of the young man who was mauled by dogs would be taken care of. Most of the times, those people are the sole bread winners. Otherwise, it is a good Bill because the guards are actually like the “wretched of the earth”."
}