Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 203782,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/203782/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 130,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Ms. Karua",
    "speaker_title": "The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 166,
        "legal_name": "Martha Wangari Karua",
        "slug": "martha-karua"
    },
    "content": " Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, I oppose the amendment by the Committee and support the amendment by the hon. Attorney-General. This section is trying to give the Commission power, as a body, but not as a director or an assistant director, to appoint a receiver of property suspected to have been corruptly acquired, pending conclusion of investigations. This section does not leave the owner of the property helpless. This Section is needed because when a person realises that he or she is under investigation, they may be tempted to move to liquidate the suspected looted property or to change it to other hands. This Section will help to preserve the assets. If you look at the entire Clause, you will see that in Sub-clause 10 of the proposed Section 56, a person aggrieved by the appointment of a receiver under this section, may request the Commission in writing to put aside that appointment, and if they refuse, a person may apply to court. You will recall that on many occasions, hon. Members as well as the public, wonder why looted property is not being recovered. This is precisely the reason why this section is being brought, so that the Commission can have powers to preserve and to eventually recover looted property. Voting against the Attorney-General's amendment and passing the proposed amendment is standing with the looters."
}