HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1133672,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1133672/?format=api",
"text_counter": 784,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Kibwezi West, Independent",
"speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Patrick Musimba",
"speaker": {
"id": 1804,
"legal_name": "Patrick Mweu Musimba",
"slug": "patrick-mweu-musimba"
},
"content": "When we look at these things about lawyers, it is about transactions. Accountants will report what is on-going. They act as whistle-blowers. However, when it comes to lawyers, we are talking about transactions in process. It is a going concern as a nation and what should concern us is this: Are we halting transactions for posterity or for continued process because lawyers are not a repository of cash? They are only conveyors and all cash transactions or otherwise go through banks. Those banks are mandated by law to report to the Financial Reporting Centre any transaction which takes place. That means that there is a footprint as you do every transaction. As such, we have recourse. When you look at the Bill, it talks about having the ability to hold cash for 48 hours. So, when people are in a transactional mood, then it negates stories which are heroic in this country like the late Naushad Merali and the deals he did with KenCell moving to Airtel. He was able, in a span of 12 hours, to put up a monumental deal together because it had legal guarantees and the monies were expressed. These were across borders. If you could say, at that point, that this is a suspicious transaction that someone has to report, we could have lost an entrepreneurial opportunity which was posterity for Kenya. We can herald the things which have gone on in terms of inclusion and, in fact, financial posterity of this nation because of the actions that were done by Naushad Merali at the time to rescue, otherwise, a deal which would have gone away from this country. As such, and this is what I am imploring to the Chairperson, it does not hurt this House to be able to get a substantial ruling on these issues that have been raised and the way forward because the history, when we head towards the Third Reading in this House, is that we cannot bring prepositions on the Floor of the House that are, otherwise, deemed to negate the law that is being proposed. This is because there are substantial moves we are making to say that we cannot include lawyers since it will go against privacy issues. More importantly, and I listened to my brother, Hon. Kaluma, is about the rights which are immune. Once such right is cruelty! There is no greater cruelty than being able to be excluded from financial transaction. There is absolutely no greater cruelty that you can put or subject someone to other than to deny them what is, otherwise, a hard process to make their money. There is absolutely nothing. So, we can sit here in comfort and say that you can report a suspicion. A suspicion can even be on the basis of what we refer to as utmost good faith in law. If I am not showing that utmost good faith, I will simply say that a deal that so and so is doing does not seem right. So, at that point, that escalation leads to irreparable damage to the parties, and this is what is of concern. Even that definition of what is suspicious is also a concern. It is suspicious to whom? The fact that someone is engaged in a deal which is above a certain threshold does not mean there is suspicion. We have heard of cases, for example, of a lady who was sent a gift of, say, USD2 million. A sum of USD2 million outside this country is just a gift of a gold necklace. But in Kenya…"
}