Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1339120,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1339120/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 361,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Seme, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) James Nyikal",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " Hon. Temporary Chairman, we always go back and forth when it comes to corruption. We need to carefully read this section. This is not as absolute as indicated. It reads – “(6A) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, where a State officer is under the investigation for, or has been charged with corruption or economic crime, the Commission may by an ex parte application in the High Court, seek for an order barring the officer from accessing his or her office or exercising the powers of that office including participating in decision making, voting and supervising staff.” The only excess thing here is “exercising the powers of that office including participating in decision making, voting and supervising staff.” This should happen when one has been dismissed. The first part of it is just barring one from accessing the office. In (6B)— “The provisions of sub-section (6A) shall apply where the Commission upon preliminary investigations has established grounds to reasonably suspect that the public or State officer is likely to – (a) Conceal, alter destroy or remove records, documents or other evidence; (b) Intimidate, threaten or otherwise interfere with witnesses; or (c) Interfere with investigations in any other matter.” In my view, the only bit that should have been removed or if we agree we further amend is “exercising the powers of that office including participating in decision making, voting and supervising staff.” This is…"
}