Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1135104,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1135104/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 82,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "reasonably suspicious financial transactions likely to fall within the meaning of money laundering to the Financial Reporting Centre. He stated that the two clauses, if passed, would be unconstitutional on the following grounds: 1. That singling out advocates and accountants among all other professions and designating them as reporting institutions violates Article 27(4) of the Constitution, which prohibits any form of discrimination. 2. That requiring advocates under the law to report financial dealings of their clients would erode the settled legal principle of advocate-client confidentiality. Hon. Members, the Fourth Chairperson, who was presiding then, took cognisance of the weighty nature of the claims by Hon. Murugara and did permit several other Members to weigh in on the matter. The Members who spoke include Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo, Hon. Aden Duale, Hon. Peter Kaluma, Hon. Peter Mwathi, Hon. Gladys Wanga, Hon. (Dr.) Patrick Musimba, Hon. Millie Odhiambo and Hon. (Dr.) Makali Mulu. In their submissions on the issues raised by Hon. Murugara, the overarching sentiments of most Members converged on the question of the constitutional propriety of the Bill. For the record, I wish to inform the House that before raising the matter at hand on the Floor of the House, Hon. Murugara had written to the Speaker on 2nd December 2021, requesting that I give direction on certain issues regarding the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill, 2021 before its Second Reading. In my estimation, the matters raised by the Member were weighty and could not have been adequately responded to by way of mere correspondence. It was the view of the Speaker that the Floor of this Chamber has been and shall remain the most appropriate place for the House to address matters of such importance to the populace as to the constitutionality of a Bill. It will be recalled that, following the issues raised by Honourable Members, the Speaker directed that the debate for Second Reading of the Bill proceeds so as to accord Members an opportunity to debate the merits and demerits of the Bill and raise any other constitutional matters therein. He, however, ordered that the question for second reading shall not be put until a considered ruling on the issues raised by Members is rendered, which I hereby proceed to do. Having reviewed the letter by Hon. Murugara and distilled the contributions made by other Members following the Point of Order raised in the House, I have isolated three questions as requiring my determination. These are: 1. Whether the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill (National Assembly Bill No. 39 of 2021) is properly before the House. 2. Whether some proposals in the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill (National Assembly Bill No. 39 of 2021) seek to limit fundamental rights and freedoms and therefore render the Bill unconstitutional. 3. Whether the inclusion of advocates as reporting institutions for suspicious financial transactions in the manner proposed in the Bill erodes the legal principle of advocate-client confidentiality. Before I guide the House on the pertinent questions for determination, it is worth noting that Articles 3 and 10 of the Constitution oblige the Chair to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution. As you are aware, all business that comes before the House is approved by the Speaker and, among other considerations, the Speaker applies his mind as to the constitutionality The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}