Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1349801,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1349801/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 145,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kikuyu, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Kimani Ichung’wah",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "More importantly, what is this Bill seeking to do? Hon. Speaker, this Bill is breathing life into Chapter Six on Leadership and Integrity, especially on matters of integrity. Therefore, I disagree with Senior Counsel on issues that touch on integrity, and I think they do sit well when discussing corruption and conflict of interest. Article 75 (1) of the Constitution, states that: “75. (1) A State officer shall behave, whether in public and official life, in private life, or in association with other persons, in a manner that avoids— (a) any conflict between personal interests and public or official duties; (b) compromising any public or official interest in favour of a personal interest; or, (c) demeaning the office the officer holds.” Therefore, the long objective of this Bill is to actualise that particular provision of Article 75 (1) (a). Therefore, there are many other issues without even belabouring the point. As Hon. Otiende has said, we do not need to go through all the 13 or 15 items that he listed. But there are some that I would agree with and many others that I will strongly disagree with because they intend to actualise and breathe life into Article 75 (1) (a) of our Constitution. If we are genuinely intent on slaying the monster or dragon of corruption that we all talk about, which spreads far and wide — and I have heard the issues that are being raised on self-preservation and how we must seek to self-preserve — we must be careful not to self- preserve in a way that we entrench conflict of interest in public office. We must lead from the front as lawmakers in ensuring that public officers have no conflict of interest. I agree with Hon. Otiende Amollo that being a public officer does not necessarily mean an elective office or people holding elective offices. It is not just Members of Parliament or Members of County Assemblies. We have governors, the Executive from the President to the Cabinet Secretaries and Principal Secretaries, who are in appointive offices. We must hold them to account using this Bill and ensure that even as you seek to self-preserve, we also enact laws that will hold everybody — Members of Parliament, Members of County Assemblies, governors, presidents and deputy presidents who are elective — to account and to ensure there is absolutely no conflict of interest in the way they conduct public office. There is a clear demarcation between their public affairs and their private business interests. If we are left in a situation where there is a blurred distinction between private and public, the era of what we have been speaking about of State capture will never end. This is our opportunity as a House and the country, and history will judge us based on what we do with this Bill. Every time a scandal is mentioned here, the political class is usually the first to speak against corruption. Let us not just speak against corruption, but also enact laws that will ensure that there is no corruption or conflict of interest. We should actualise the provisions of Chapter 6, specifically Articles 75 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of our country. We should also hold our horses as we wait for the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to table the addendum so that we can see what they have proposed for amendments. If they do not carry any amendment, nothing stops an Hon. Member from moving an amendment to the Bill. If it makes sense without diluting the objectives of the Bill, we shall support, although in a cautious manner. With that I beg that we allow the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to finish their work and apprise the House accordingly."
}