Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1135108,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1135108/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 86,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The third case of interest to the instant matter is that of the Military Veterans Bill, 2013. Other than the concern of being a ‘Money Bill’, it was argued that by proposing to establish a Government Department headed by a Director-General, an advisory council and a military veterans appeals board, the Bill offended Article 132(4)(b) of the Constitution by usurping the power of the President to establish offices in the public service. In my guidance to the House, I did direct the Departmental Committee on Defence and Foreign Relations to further engage the Attorney-General and the Cabinet Secretary for Defence to shed light on the issues of constitutionality of the Bill and table a report for the Speaker to guide the House on how to proceed. The Bill lapsed and so, the intended guidance never materialised. Hon. Members, from the foregoing examples, you will notice that the Speaker has been hesitant to out rightly declare a Bill as unconstitutional. The Speaker has consistently refrained from curtailing the House from considering a Bill where adequate opportunity for the House to cure any alleged unconstitutionality exists. I have stated before and do reiterate that the role of the Speaker is facilitative and not obstructive. Where it is still within the power of this House to take action on a matter, which action is likely to remedy a question of doubt cast on the constitutionality of a matter before this House, I must trust that the House shall act in the best interest of the people which it represents, unless compelling reasons exist to the contrary. Having shared that brief history, let me now turn to the first issue for determination, which is whether the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill (National Assembly Bill No. 39 of 2021) is properly before the House. The Hon. Aden Duale is on record as having wondered why the allegedly unconstitutional amendments contained in the Bill have been re-introduced in the House at various times between 2015 and 2021. He claimed that “any Bill that fails the constitutional test cannot be cured even if one keeps on reintroducing that Bill and bringing the same amendments and sneaking them through various Bills, whether it is through amending the Statute Law or through the Finance Bill.” By alleging that the proposed amendments were being sneaked into the House through various Bills, the ranking Member was, in principle, casting aspersions on the propriety of the Bill being before the House. Hon. Members, I have reviewed the records of the House and indeed do agree with the Hon. Duale but only on one fact – that this is not the first time that the impugned amendments proposed in the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill, 2021 have been introduced in this House. The first attempt to amend the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA) was in 2015 when the then Leader of the Majority Party, Hon. Aden Duale, introduced the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill, 2015. The principal object of the Bill, then, was to amend the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act Cap. 598 to enhance the powers of the Financial Reporting Centre; to impose civil penalties; and to take administrative action against non-compliance with the directives of the Centre. It is important to note that the Bill listed accountants as among the designated non-financial businesses or professions with the obligation to report suspicious financial transactions to the Financial Reporting Centre. This Bill was passed and assented to in 2017. In 2016, the Hon. Aden Duale, then Leader of the Majority Party, introduced in the House the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 2016 which sought to, inter alia, amend the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act to remove the position of Deputy Director of the Financial Reporting Centre for the smooth running of the Centre. The then Leader of the Majority Party formally withdrew the said proposed amendments and I did communicate the withdrawal to the House on 9th February 2017. It was in 2018 that the House got seized of 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."
}