HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1444354,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1444354/?format=api",
"text_counter": 164,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Wambua",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 13199,
"legal_name": "Enoch Kiio Wambua",
"slug": "enoch-kiio-wambua"
},
"content": "Let us face it. The institution of marriage in this country has really come under intense attack, especially on the matter of inheritance. The intention of this Bill is noble, to deal with matters that arise in the event of the necessity to share property. I also want to caution all of us, and our spouses, that there is more to marriage than just the sharing of property. We have really commercialized marriage to the extent that now I am hearing people are marrying for the convenience of property and wealth. Going to the Bill, there is a bit of confusion. I hope when Sen. Veronica appears before the Committee to defend this Bill and maybe take us through public participation, some of these things will be clarified. For instance, we are concentrating on the child. This Bill speaks so much about the child. I am asking myself, are we talking about a child also referring to a dependant? Are we talking about a person who is entitled or are we talking about a child as defined by the law? If we are talking about a child as defined by the law, then the question arises, if you are over 18 years, are you still a child and are you entitled to the provisions of this Bill because this Bill is talking about a child? We all know that we had a very interesting case - and I do not want to mention names - of a 52-year-old child who came up and said, I also want a share of my father's property. So, is that also a child by the definition of this Bill or what exactly are we talking about? Now, on the matter of intermeddling, I am happy that the Bill, sponsored by Sen. Veronica, is trying to challenge some existing cultural norms and practices that really maybe should not have any place in today's institution of marriage. I am talking about the issue of people invading the households of deceased persons and carting away property. It will be remembered that in some areas, it is not just even carting away property, they even appropriate the surviving spouse. So, it is good to provide clarity on the matter of intermeddling in the event of a spouse passing on. Now, Sen. Veronica, there is a small challenge. This Bill speaks about passing on property and wealth in the event of death. However, you should also be alive to the fact that - and I know this because you also subscribe to the same faith as I do - the institution of marriage is complete at the tying of the knot. Once a man is married to a woman, that becomes a family. Now, this Bill is a bit too prescriptive because it says when one spouse dies and the surviving spouse remarries, then they lose ownership of the property that was acquired from the first marriage. The question that you should be asking yourself is if death occurred before a child came and the surviving spouse remarries, where does that property go to? The reason for remarrying should make a difference in determining the sharing of the property. Sen. Cheruiyot brought up, in passing, a very important conversation. I do not know how Sen. Veronica will handle it. I heard him say he does not know whether I am accustomed to that. It is happening even now. It is not something that has stopped. There are situations where a wife would bring another woman into her matrimonial home. In most cases, the woman came with children from other fathers. When they come, they become part of that family, but there is no biological connection between them or any member of that family apart from their mother. How will you treat such The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."
}