HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 216094,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/216094/?format=api",
"text_counter": 445,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Muturi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 215,
"legal_name": "Justin Bedan Njoka Muturi",
"slug": "justin-muturi"
},
"content": "Thank you, Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, for that correction. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the freedoms granted to all citizens of this country as provided for in Section 79(1) of our Constitution, are clear. Indeed, those freedoms and rights have been read out. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, if you go to Section 79(2), it creates some other classes of people in particular situations. In respect to those persons, it is said that 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. The law in question here is this Bill. It is seeking to make certain provisions. The classes of people about whom if anything were to be made it would not be inconsistent with Section 79(a). If the law makes provisions:- \"(a) that is reasonably required in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health.\" That is one class of people. If the law we are making was to make provision relating to those provisions, then anything done in that law will not be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms given under Section 79(1) of the Constitution. The next class of people is the class in (b). It generally relates to legal proceedings. However, for clarity, if, again, the law is making provision:- \"(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 adminstration or technical operation of telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting or television.\" That is another class about which, if the law was making provisions relating to those, then any provisions within the law will not be inconsistent with Section 79(1) of the Constitution. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the other class or category of people about whom if anything were to be provided in any law; including this Bill, it will not be inconsistent with the Constitution is if the law makes provisions:- \"(c) that imposes restrictions upon public officers or upon persons in the services of a local government authority, and except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the things done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justified in a democratic society.\" Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must know that this Bill is not about public officers. It is about journalists and media practitioners. I want to make that distinction. Journalists are also generally not employed by local authorities. This is in relation to public officers or people employed by local authorities. We know what public officers are. We have a Public Officers Ethics Act (2003). To the extent, that is where we have difficulty. Not withstanding that the Attorney-General may have given advice; to the extent that there are provisions made here, particularly with regard to the accuracy and fairness within the code of conduct, that the people to be affected are not any of these for whom Section 79(2) creates a distinct class, I believe that the Bill would be inconsistent with Section 79(1). 2288 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES July 4, 2007"
}