Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1278859,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1278859/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 260,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Taveta, WDM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. John Bwire",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " I am speaking to sections cited for amendment through this Bill. - the proposed amendments to Section 36 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2009. I am discussing Section 36 (A)(B) 36(A)(5A), 36(B)(5E) and 36(C). You will note that these are amendments to the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2009. If you look at these provisions, you will appreciate that there is a recommendation that now reporting by advocates can be done as long as it is recommended by the supervisory board. Clause 36(B) says: “Provided the board may cooperate and coordinate with domestic and foreign counterparts for purposes of combating money laundering, terrorism and financing…” It goes ahead to say, “Including share of information and documents with a domestic or a foreign counterpart.” Why am I saying this? In order for us to appreciate the Attorney-Client Privilege Rule, we must agree that this is a common law rule. It is very old. In fact, my little research shows me that it started the year 1700. The rule cures two mischiefs. It restores two absolute rights. This is the presumption of innocence and the right against self-incrimination. There are two categories of people. Any information shared by them is literally a violation of the right against self-incrimination. One is an attorney. The second person is a spouse. The reason we have the Attorney-Client Privilege Rule is to protect the client as envisaged by the rule against self- incrimination and rule of the right to presumption of innocence. If we can now say that as long as a supervisory board recommends sharing information, an advocate has an obligation to share information regarding his client, we will be going against the fundamental rights of human beings against self-incrimination and the right to presumption of innocence under which an advocate accesses this information."
}