Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1349797,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1349797/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 141,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " I wrote to your good Office on 21st November, raising 15 different points on why, in my opinion, the Conflict of Interest Bill stands unconstitutional in its present form. I will highlight just three points because I took the liberty to copy the letter to the Leader of the Minority Party and the Leader of the Majority Party. I am sure they are seized of it. I am aware that the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs only finished its deliberations on the Bill this afternoon. They have produced an addendum Report, part of which agrees with some of the points I raised. We raised the issue in the definition in Clause 2 of the Bill. It brings a definition of a public officer that will conflict with the Constitution. Strangely, it seeks to include volunteers, consultants and persons who render Government services as public officers. The implication of that is immense. Paragraph 4 in Clause 2 of the Bill directly contradicts the separation of powers, the Powers and Privileges Act, and our Standing Orders that have made this House self-regulating. In its wisdom, this House passed an Act of Parliament - National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act – and the Standing Orders. It also gave the Committee of Powers and Privileges power to deal with conflict of interest. This Bill seeks to yank that from Parliament and assign it to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) so that it will end up regulating what we, as Members of Parliament, do in this Parliament. That is wrong. Every arm of Government must be self-regulating. The Judiciary is regulated by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). We are self-regulating through yourself, Hon. Speaker, as the Chairman of the Parliamentary Service Commission and then the Committee. Clause 11 of the Bill does something which is very strange. Besides trying to regulate all public and State officers, this Bill singles out only Members of Parliament. It does not single out Cabinet Secretaries, Principal Secretaries or judges, but only Members of Parliament. It is as if this Bill is tailored to focus on Members of Parliament in a very unfair way. There is something very strange in Clause 11(2) of the Bill, which is in paragraph 8 of my letter. Other than requiring Members of Parliament to declare whenever there is any issue of conflict of interest, it says that whenever such a declaration is made, no Member of Parliament can participate in any debate or discussion where they will benefit. The implication of that is that there will be no one to legislate on any issues affecting Members of Parliament because we will all be in a conflict of interest. We will not even deliberate on the National Government Constituencies Development Fund (Amendment) Bill as we are doing it today. 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."
}