Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 203863,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/203863/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 211,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Ms. Ndung'u",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 361,
        "legal_name": "Susanna Njoki Ndung'u",
        "slug": "njoki-ndungu"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, I would like to support this amendment as proposed by Mr. Wakoli. I think it is important for me to take you through the parent Act, because one of the things that happened yesterday--- I realised, when I saw the coverage by the Fourth Estate of yesterday's proceedings, that it is obvious that people are not making reference to the parent Act. Yesterday, we were not taking away any powers from the Commission. Actually, the Commission was trying to give itself some more powers, which we declined to grant. The Commission still has powers. Therefore, in the case of the Public Officer Ethics Act, I would like us to go to the parent Act. The parent Act, which we carefully passed in 2003, talks about the manner in which people can access the information in the declarations. We said that the information can be accessed, or acquired, by authorised staff of the Commission, the police or any other law enforcement agency, a person authorised by an order of a judge of the High Court or a person who provided that information or his representative. In other words, we are not saying that this information is closed, but we are exercising caution, while respecting the right to privacy vis-a-vis public interest. We need to also protect people from malicious people. The information is only necessary if one is suspected of \"x\", \"y\" and \"z\". Really, this is not constitutional. It is unconstitutional; it goes against the right to privacy, and does not take away the intention that we had in terms of giving our declarations away. We have already provided the manner in which that information can be accessed. Therefore, this proposed Section is dangerous and should be deleted."
}