HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 216049,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/216049/?format=api",
"text_counter": 400,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. M. Kilonzo",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 47,
"legal_name": "Mutula Kilonzo",
"slug": "mutula-kilonzo"
},
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point of order to seek a ruling from the Chair on the legality and constitutionality of this Bill. I will go straight to the point. Section 79 of our Constitution - if you allow me, I will read it out, because this is an extremely critical matter - which appears at page 52, reads as follows:- \"79(1) Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons and freedom from interference with his correspondence.\" Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is my very humble view that, that constitutional provision is clear. It does not require further interpretation. The framers of our Constitution gave us a window for dealing with the media and people who deal with freedom of expression. Therefore, they created subsection (2) of the Constitution. Again, if you allow me, I will read it out briefly, because it demonstrates that the parameters in this Bill are completely outside the province of the windows created by the fathers of our country. Subsection 2 of Section 71 reads as follows:- \"79(2).Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision for- (a) that it is reasonably required in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; (b) that is reasonably required for the purpose of protecting the reputations, rights and freedoms of other persons or the private lives of persons concerned in legal proceedings; preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of the courts or regulating the technical administration or the technical operation of telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless, broadcasting or television; or, (c) that imposes restrictions upon public officers or upon persons in the service of a local government authority, and except so far as that provision or, as the case maybe, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.\" Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, you will notice that the framers of our Constitution finished this subsection with the use of the words \"justifiable in a democratic society\". It is my humble request to the Chair that a finding be made as to the constitutionality of this Bill. Why? Because, looking at it carefully, you will observe that no attempt whatsoever has been made in it to address the provisions of Section 71(1) and 71(2). In fact, the framers of this Bill, with utmost respect to them, have gone to the extent of creating a definition of a journalist in Part I. They have gone to the extent of creating a Code of Conduct that, in my very firm view, is a complete derogation of the word \"hindered\" in Section 79 of the Constitution. I would like to say that the code of conduct formulated from page 754 - the Third Schedule - looking at it very carefully, even attempts to define the fundamental objectives of a journalist. I dare submit that, that alone, again, is a complete derogation from Section 79 of the Constitution. There is no excuse whatsoever---"
}