HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1399573,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1399573/?format=api",
"text_counter": 277,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Crystal Asige",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, Clause 23 of the Bill introduces stringent restrictions on public officers requiring prior approval from both the reporting authority and the EACC before engaging in additional employment. This Bill casts a wide net in its definition of a public officer, encompassing individuals serving the Government in various capacities, whether appointed or elected, on a full-time or part-time basis and regardless of their permanency. This expansive definition to me extends to include state officers, employees, consultants, volunteers and even medical professionals. However, this provision raises concern for me. It fails to acknowledge the numerous opportunities that public officers create to their supplementary employment ventures. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, many public officers as you know, particularly, the medical professionals often face financial challenges such as irregular salaries as we are seeing with the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KPMDU). They must support their family in some way. Imposing restrictions on their ability to seek additional sources of income may exacerbate their financial hardship. Furthermore, the proposal overlooks the temporary nature of certain public office tenures. For example, Members of Parliament (MPs) may serve for only a limited term of the minimum five years. Is it fair to prevent them from pursuing additional employment opportunities during that tenure, effectively pausing our growth in different income streams across the term we are serving? Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, that is a question that has not been fulfilled for me through this Bill. As we know, many MPs and public officers from the top all the way to the bottom talk about having a side hustle. That is something that needs to be looked into in this Bill. While it is crucial to uphold integrity and prevent conflict of interest, any measure should consider the diverse circumstance and the needs of public officers. In my view, simply restricting to earn a livelihood could have widespread repercussions. It jeopardizes both their financial stability and the capacity to serve the public effectively and maybe, pay longstanding debts. The Bill further stipulates that each public officer must submit a declaration of income, which is good, also assets and liabilities for themselves and their spouse or spouses and any independent children under 18. For this, the provision contradicts Article 31 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to privacy. Article 31 states that every person has the right to privacy, which includes protection against unwarranted intrusion such as seizures and unnecessary disclosure of family or private information or infringement on the privacy of communication. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, how does this Bill set to reconcile this issue? It is evident from this constitutional provision that no one should have access to information concerning the family or private affairs of a public officer, such as myself. While it may be reasonable to require some level of declaration, to those who willingly accept the positions, this should not extend to family members, spouses and children who did not choose this public life. There are many other issues that I cited in this Bill, but because of time, I will just conclude by saying that corruption is not going to be curbed by provisions, verbiage,"
}