Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1135118,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1135118/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 96,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "to hold any water. With regard to compliance with the criteria set out in Article 24 of the Constitution, I observed that to the extent that the Finance Bill, 2019 had proposed to amend sections of the Act with a discernible link to the limitation of rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the said amendments ought to comply with the requirements of Article 24(2) of the Constitution. Consequently, I determined that Clauses 50 and 51 of the Finance Bill, 2019 had not been accompanied by any additional provision stating the intention to limit the right to privacy and the nature and extent of the limitation in relation to the new categories of professionals it (sought) to designate as reporting institutions under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2009. I therefore found that the two proposed provisions failed to comply with the standard of disclosure set out by the Constitution and therefore were procedurally defective and, consequently, ordered the exclusion of those two provisions from consideration by the House during the Second Reading and subsequent stages of the Bill. In so guiding, I was very clear that my determination related to the procedural defects in the manner in which the proposed amendments had been presented and not their constitutionality or otherwise. Hon. Members, it is instructive that the Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning, after undertaking public participation on the Finance Bill, 2019, had also recommended that the amendments relating to POCAMLA be excluded from the Finance Bill. The Committee noted that the said amendments had serious ramifications and ought to have been proposed in a separate Bill instead of an omnibus Bill. The Committee made reference to the submissions by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) that the amendments impacted several principles, practices and laws touching on the subject of legal profession privilege/advocate-client confidentiality cemented under the evidentiary rule of privilege under the law of evidence and the common law principle adopted under the Judicature Act. In this regard, the Committee is on record as having taken cognizance of the weighty submissions by the LSK and recommended as follows at paragraph 192 of the Report on the Consideration of the Finance Bill, 2019 – “The committee resolved to reject the proposed amendments in the Bill to allow introduction of the amendment Bill to POCAMLA and not through miscellaneous amendments. This will allow extensive public participation.” Hon. Members, a plain reading of the Committee’s observation and recommendations indicates that there was nothing unconstitutional about the proposed amendments. What arose was the need to have the proposed amendments published in a separate substantive Bill in order to allow sufficient public participation. And now, therefore, out of this long and winding journey, a separate and substantive Bill to amend the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2009 has been introduced and is now before the House for consideration. 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."
}