Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1133619,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1133619/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 731,
    "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. Murugara did not mention Section 9 (b) and I want it included in that consideration because the issues are similar to those in Section 2. Clause 10 (c) (iii) (a) again when it comes to qualification for appointment, that is also to be considered. But of greater concern is Clause 130(a) - the limitation clause. This clause now limits the right to privacy in Article 31 of the Constitution. I will come back to that. As Clause 130 (a) talks of the limitations, Clause 130 (1) and (2) gives the limitation and a discretion to be searched, for seizure of property, to reveal financial information of family and not even of the advocates. It also allows interference with communication without due process. There is nothing in this amendment that talks of any due process. You want to subject advocates to the possibility of seizure, search, disclosure of financial information of the family and even communication without due process. That is unconstitutional. Clause 16 (1) then brings in LSK as one of the other supervisory bodies without examining the capacity of the LSK to be a supervisory body in financial transactions. The LSK so far regulates who can practice law and not how. In doing so, it now requires the LSK to do two further things: One, under Section 44 of the Act as it is now, it places an obligation to start monitoring lawyers in terms of how they do their work. In Section 45 of the existing Act, it places an obligation on the individual advocates to verify customer information which is indicated as identity including; birth certificates and driving licenses. Those are the kinds of things that this proposal wants advocates to do. This is not only discriminatory; but burdensome and infringes on the age-old custom of client-advocate confidentiality. Article 31 of the Constitution is very specific and it protects privacy. In Article 31(c) information on private affairs and under (d) privacy of communication. The Bill specifically seeks to bring information on family under Clause 130 and communications under Clause 130 (2). It is to be noted that Article 24 (v) of the Constitution tellingly allows limitation of the right to privacy, for members serving in the Kenya Defence Forces (KDF) and the National Police Service (NPS). Why does Article 24 (v) of the Constitution take the trouble to say that right to privacy for those in the armed and discipline forces can be limited? It is because the right to privacy is fundamental. It may not be non-delegable as in Article 25 of the Constitution, but is fundamental. You cannot just derogate it."
}