Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 201304,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/201304/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 340,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Muite",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 235,
        "legal_name": "Paul Kibugi Muite",
        "slug": "paul-muite"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, may I first of all make the point that the concerns which the Committee had expressed on the constitutionality of this Section have actually been accepted by His Excellency the President. We had said that evidence obtained in the manner prescribed in the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, negates the constitutional right to silence, the constitutional presumption of innocent until one is proved guilty and the constitutional right not to self-incriminate; providing evidence against yourself. Therefore, what His Excellence is proposing is that he accepts that in the absence of a clause like this one which makes evidence obtained in violation of those constitutional rights, will not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceedings. So, to that extent, the President accepted the concerns which had been expressed by the Committee in its report to this House. But what we are saying here is that, if that evidence is inadmissible in criminal proceedings, proceedings for forfeiture of property is also a very serious proceeding. Why should it be a basic in proceedings where the party is going to have his or her property forfeited? We are saying that even there it should be inadmissible. We are saying very well that KACC officials and investigators should get evidence without coercing it from the suspect. I beg to support the slight amendment moved by Mr. Marende and I plead with hon. Members to support the amendment."
}