Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1036441,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1036441/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 1493,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kipipiri, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Amos Kimunya",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 174,
        "legal_name": "Amos Muhinga Kimunya",
        "slug": "amos-kimunya"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman. I read this differently. If an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate, then what this is intending to do is to insulate the officers acting for that body corporate. So, if you look at it from that angle, it is probably the construction that has a problem, as Hon. Millie has said. That if the offences committed by a body corporate, or any association of individuals, if you stop at that point, then a director, partner or any other person involved in or purporting to act for that body, is guilty unless the person proves that the act constituting took place without their knowledge and the person took reasonable steps to preempt the commission of the offences. So, we are here talking of removing liability. Just because the corporate did and you are the director, does not mean you are guilty unless you are part of the people perpetrating the crime. That is the way I read it. This insulates officers and directors from affairs of the company so long as you are not part of it. It is probably just the comma after the “body corporate” and then put semi colon, which then breaks the sentence. That could be done editorially, so long as we get the principle. It has to be done here. So, perhaps, the Mover might want to move it in an amended form than to put a semi colon after ‘association of individuals’, so that you say: “If an offence was committed by a body corporate or association of individuals, then a director or partner or any other person engaged, is guilty unless the person proves that the act was...” So, the intention is good but the construction is poorly done to a point of causing confusion."
}