Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 206137,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/206137/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 192,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Eng. Muriuki",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 224,
        "legal_name": "Muriuki Karue",
        "slug": "muriuki-karue"
    },
    "content": "On a point of information, Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir. Thank you for giving me this chance to say a word or two having been the originator of this subclause which has brought a lot of debate. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, most of the debate which has been in the public August 30, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 3611 domain has been on that particular clause or purporting to be on it; whether or not the media should be asked to disclose the sources of their information. That too has nothing to do with my clause because my clause was asking that when there stories about me or you or somebody else and then there is a dispute as to who it meant. That is the time when my clause was to come in place. Be that as it may, I think the media had raised one or two valid points which even to me, as the Mover of that clause, I am in support. They should not be asked where they get their stories from. However, I am also raising an important issue which I think they were also not agreeing to tell the public, so that the public is able to know for sure whether this is a good clause or not. That was never brought to the public domain; to the extent that some of the arguments which were being brought forward were that I may have had an interest in this particular matter. It is important for me to explain that if this House is, for example, dealing with a law to do with burglary, it does not mean that every hon. Member who has been burgled, therefore, has to stand there and say that he or she has an interest. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, the Attorney-General did give his views to the hon. Minister for Information and Communications and I got a copy of that letter. The letter explained that the Attorney-General agrees that the clause does not talk about the source. However, it could be misused for that purpose. The ideal situation would have been to leave my clause the way it is, and then have another clause specifically to outlaw the media from being asked to reveal their sources of information. As it is now, what is likely to happen is that we will get rid of this clause, but the whole Bill does not have anywhere where the media is safeguarded against being forced in a court of law, or otherwise, to disclose who their sources are. As a result, if you look at the Bill as it is now, Section 31 will make the media houses be forced to disclose their sources with or without my clause. So, under the circumstances, I do not feel like contesting the recommendations by His Excellency the President. I will, therefore, go by the resolution of the House. Thank you."
}