Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 201302,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/201302/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 338,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Wako",
    "speaker_title": "The Attorney-General",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 208,
        "legal_name": "Sylvester Wakoli Bifwoli",
        "slug": "wakoli-bifwoli"
    },
    "content": " Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, I oppose the amendment by Mr. Marende. I think he will be the first to recognise and accept that the authorities that he is relying on, are authorities which confine themselves to criminal proceedings. I am aware of the cases in the Criminal Justice Act of the United Kingdom (UK), which had similar positions and which was challenged before the European Courts under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was upheld and consequently the Criminal Justice Act was amended to accommodate that. This amendment is to accommodate that. But as far as that goes, it is to accommodate that as far as criminal proceedings are concerned. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, even the authorities in South Africa or UK do not preclude the evidence from the civil proceedings, including forfeiture and asset recovery and this is really for a good reason. It is because under civil proceedings, everybody is afforded the opportunity in all those proceedings to challenge what is going on. If I may say so, under criminal proceedings, why it was being challenged is that, whereas, that recommendation was not admissible during the criminal trial, it would have been obtained prior to the trials and it would been unfair to the accused person. The information obtained prior to the trial under those circumstances should now be introduced against him in a criminal trial. But under the civil process, the procedure is different because under the civil process, everybody is accorded the opportunity. Even if you look, for example, at the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act that we have, Section 55 of the Act which relates to forfeiture of the unexplained assets and so on, you will find a very elaborate procedure there which accords the opportunity of the person affected to challenge it. For example, Section 55, Subsection 3, provides that:- \"Proceedings under this Section, the person whose assets are in question, shall be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine any witness called and to challenge any evidence adduced by the Commission---\" So, really, that principle does not apply to the civil process. Therefore, to bring that principle to apply to a civil process is to defeat and dilute the powers of the Commission on issues of assets recovery and forfeiture."
}