HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1399536,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1399536/?format=api",
"text_counter": 240,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Wakili Sigei",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "you. In this case, if you want to be exempted, you are required, under the provisions of Section 29, to make an application in writing so that the commission or the entity can exempt you in writing. This particular section has also given a protection to that application, so that the entity does not stay forever to respond, and it has given, under the provisions of 29(ii), that the request must be responded to within 30 days. So, a decision as to whether or not you can be allowed to represent must be made available to you within 30 days. The Committee has taken cognisance of the fact that these preconditions do not and should not apply to persons, who in their professional capacity, could be engaged courtesy of the provisions of the Constitution that entitles an entity or an individual to provide - to get services from such individuals. Therefore, the Committee has proposed an introduction of sub-clause 3, which says that the provisions of Sections 27 and 28 shall not apply to a former public officer representing another person in any proceedings before a court of law or tribunal established by law, including a witness. Why did the Committee seek to propose such an introduction of a subclause? Three reasons. One, we would, in most cases, be required to have expert witnesses who, by virtue of their previous office, know the information that an entity is seeking to establish. That is one of the reasons why the Committee sought to introduce this additional Clause, so that we do not lose on investigations by virtue of the fact that since you were a former employee, the law bars you from participating in an investigation that requires your expertise as a witness. Secondly, of course, is the protection of representation of clients in courts of law or tribunals where a professional, in this case, like a lawyer, who by virtue of the constitutional edict, a client is entitled to pick a person of his choice. That is why as a Committee, we have proposed to introduce that particular sub-clause. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, under Clause 29, the Committee has confirmed that the time limitation provided to the commission or the authorised entity to respond to an inquiry as to exemption should be 30 days. Why? It is because we live in Kenya. An entity that would, for whatever reason, be malicious in authorising a representation can take forever the way we talk about investigations taking ages to conclude when an individual has, for example, been suspended. That is coming in the subsequent proposals we have made as a Committee. However, the Committee felt that it is important to make sure that within a period of 30 days, if one has sought to be exempted, that exemption should be done in writing. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the next Clause that the Committee dealt with is the provision under Clause 34 of this Bill. Clause 34 of the Bill talks about access to declaration. This being a conflict of interest Bill, the law is proposing that as public officers, we are expected to make certain declarations at certain intervals to the public and for purposes of making sure that we are protected as public officers. For this reason, Clause 34 provides that you are required to avail the declarations upon application to either the Commission or to a reporting entity. In this case, the Committee has proposed that Clause 34 of the Bill be amended to ensure that the rights of individuals in terms of the constitutional provision on the rights"
}