Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1135134,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1135134/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 112,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": ") I.R 587, a right to privacy can never be absolute. It has to be balanced against the State’s duty to protect and vindicate life. What needs to be done, as was recognised in Campbell vs. MGN Ltd (2004) 2 AC 457, is to subject the limitation and the purpose it is intended to serve to a balancing test whose aim is to determine whether the intrusion into an individual’s privacy is proportionate to the public interest to be served by the intrusion. Hon. Members, in considering the proposal in the Bill against the claim of intrusion of privacy and other rights, the House is expected to weigh the claim against the public interest that the State seeks to secure through the proposed legislation. At face value, the limitations contemplated in Clauses 2 and 9 of the Bill seemingly seek to avail to the State the legal framework for enforcing integrity, transparency and accountability, being inviolable national values and principles of governance in accordance with Article 10 of the Constitution. Therefore, to the extent that Article 24 of the Constitution permits limitation of certain rights and fundamental freedoms by law and the fact that the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill (National Assembly Bill No.39 of 2021) explicitly discloses the intended limitations as required in the Article, there exists no procedural defect in the Bill to preclude the House from considering it at this stage. Hon. Members, with regard to the reasonability and justifiability of the nature and extent of the limitation of rights as contained in the Bill, as your Speaker I wish to state that the determination falls outside the remit of the Speaker. Therefore, I will not delve into the merits or otherwise of the matter, save to say that due process has thus far been followed in the processing of the Bill. In any case, there exist various levels for determination of such matters including by Parliament through the various legislative processes, by the Judiciary through interpretation and/or review of any legislation passed by Parliament, and by various enforcement bodies as provided in law. Article 165(3) of the Constitution provides for direct determination of such issues of infringement or violation of the Bill of Rights by the High Court whenever they arise. The matter of alleged discrimination of advocates and accountants by the Bill also arises from questions raised on the constitutionality of the Bill. Article 27 of the Constitution provides for the equality and freedom from discrimination for all persons. Clause 4 provides: “(4) The State shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth.” The inclusion of advocates as professionals required to report any suspicious financial transactions law has been cited as discriminatory and prejudicial against legal practitioners. However, my reading of the principal Act which the Bill seeks to amend indicates that there are other professions already designated as reporting institutions. Section 48 of the principal Act 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."
}