Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1399538,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1399538/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 242,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Wakili Sigei",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "of privacy and where we are seeking to comply with certain court orders are monitored so that entities do not abuse this particular provision. We have, therefore, proposed that we can only be under an obligation to disclose such information where the Act under Sub- Clause 2 had referred to due process. Due process is very wide. The Committee asked what is due process and how we protect private individuals and confidential information from being abused. This is because an entity can decide to say we have conducted investigations internally and have made recommendations, probably as a committee or as a team in charge of the investigation, to force or compel production of certain confidential information. The Committee has proposed that in order to protect the public, and in order to protect officers who have been subjected to either a disciplinary process or an investigation process, due process cannot and should not be left as wide as it were. We have sought to say this due process can only be due process, which is subjected to the right to privacy as provided for under the Constitution and pursuant to a court order or the Access to Information Act. That way, we will be protecting privacy, we will be protecting the compliance by institutions with the law, and we will, by extension, ensure that there is no abuse of the right that is provided for by this particular law to ask for and compel individuals to avail information. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I notice my time is running up. Clause 41 is another Clause that the Committee has also sought - suspension from office. Clause 41 says that subject to the Constitution and any written law, a public officer may be suspended from office with full pay pending the investigation and determination of allegations made against that officer where such suspension is considered necessary. The provision that grants the Commission an entitlement or an entity, an entitlement to suspend someone is open to a lot of abuse, especially in terms of the timelines within which you can be asked to be away from office pending investigations. As I earlier alluded, institutions can take more than three months, some more than even one year. We are aware of certain investigations that have been conducted over the last five years, where in any inquiry you get an excuse that we are still conducting investigations. The Committee, therefore, proposes that Clause 41(2) which requires or mandates an entity to release an individual on suspicion for a period of 90 days, proposes that that should only be the maximum time, and we say that if, therefore, these investigations cannot be timely, such an individual cannot be out there for more than 90 days, even if the investigations are not concluded. We have therefore proposed that if the Commission or a reporting entity fails to conclude the investigation within 90 days, the investigation shall be deemed to have been concluded at the expiry of the 90 days and the officer shall resume his or her office. The reason we are proposing this is to ensure that investigative entities, whether it is the Directorate of Criminal Investigation (DCI), the Ethics and Ant-Corruption Commission (EACC), or a reporting entity, do their investigations within certain timelines, and also it gets against the witch-hunt. This is one of those propositions where if you leave it open- ended, there will be a lot of abuse of this particular Clause because what will happen is"
}