Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 205130,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/205130/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 362,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. M. Kilonzo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 47,
        "legal_name": "Mutula Kilonzo",
        "slug": "mutula-kilonzo"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, I believe the hon. Attorney- 3770 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES September 6, 2007 General, and my good friend, the learned Minister, have mis-apprehended the objection we are raising in supporting this amendment. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, as you will very well know, countries like, for example, the United States of America (USA), on laws of racketeering, go even further and order that proceeds of organised crime or racketeering can, in fact, be forfeited to the state. What we are opposing is the uncertainty in punishment law. These two clauses, \"a\" and \"b\", are creating that uncertainty. All that we are saying is that the words \"an additional mandatory fine\" creates uncertainty, particularly when an advocate is advising an accused person. It creates one of the biggest problems in International Human Rights Law; that is, cruel and unjust punishment, where it appears that one single offence is carrying two sentences. In fact, if you look at \"a\" and \"b\", it is almost three or four sentences. We are not opposed to people who have looted being punished. We are not opposed to the country creating a punishing law against abuse of office, although, as the country is well aware, the Government has been unable to convict anybody of those offences because of the way it has been drafted. We want to stop this honourable Chamber from making a law that will be shot down for creating uncertainty and for creating cruel and unjust punishment. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, I beg to support the amendment."
}