HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1024217,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1024217/?format=api",
"text_counter": 307,
"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": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. I have now combed through this Bill and it is a unique day because we have had to consider three Bills on pensions, two in the morning. I suspect most of us were not there, given the rotational nature of Parliament. We have considered one in the afternoon. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, having considered this Bill, I stand to support it. First of all, it should be understood that one of the things that this Bill seeks to cure is an illegality. Until this Bill becomes law, any Member of the Senate who gets any benefits under the Parliamentary Pensions Act would be benefitting from an illegality because that Act only refers to Members of the National Assembly. To the extent that this Bill changes the words “National Assembly” to “Member of Parliament”, it enables Members of the Senate, who have served for two terms and beyond, to benefit lawfully. Secondly, and I have agonized about this for some time, it is possible that we will be accused of breaching Article 116 (3) of the Constitution to confer a benefit to ourselves.This is something that we must make very clear. As I understand this Bill, it merely seeks to give an election. As Members of Parliament serving for one term, you are entitled to a gratuity. The same gratuity that you are entitled to if you serve in offices like the Ombudsman, in which I served, at the end of six years, you get a gratuity. But, this Bill seeks to give you the opportunity to make an election between a one-off gratuity and a delayed pension spread over time. To that extent, not only is it not necessarily a financial burden, it is not a benefit, it is a conversion. It is very important that we get the terminology right. Speaking to what the Leader of the Minority Party was talking about, whether it is a defined benefit scheme or a defined contributory scheme, I would urge that we adopt the words “defined contributory scheme”. If you adopt the words “defined benefit scheme”, you are already falling into the trap of saying that you are conferring a benefit on yourselves. That is not something we need to go into. Let us be clear that we are making an election. Instead of the one-off gratuity, we are spreading it into a pension. And for that reason, it is not anything that would contradict Article 116. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, under Article 116, it is a direct pecuniary interest that we are barred from conferring on ourselves. If we do, then it can only take effect after the next election. Where it is a conversion, where you are voluntarily determining that, instead of getting a gratuity, let us spread it over to a pension, it does not affect Article 116 of the Constitution. Is it an issue of conflict of interest? Of course not because, first of all, we are covering former Members of Parliament who are not here to speak for themselves. Secondly, we are covering Senators who are not in the National Assembly. Lastly, it is a matter of necessity because only Parliament can make law. As long as you are dealing with any law on gratuity and pension, we cannot take it to the Cabinet to pass it. We cannot take it to anyone else. We must make it here ourselves. Indeed, this Bill also seeks to cure a discriminatory abnormality that, if you have served as Member of Parliament for two terms and beyond, then you are entitled to a pension; I believe it is Ksh300,000 or something. But, if you serve for one term, you are not entitled to any such thing. It does not make sense. I believe that it is okay if you serve for one term to be entitled to a pension"
}