HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 216098,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/216098/?format=api",
"text_counter": 449,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. M'Mukindia",
"speaker_title": "The Temporary Deputy Speaker",
"speaker": {
"id": 271,
"legal_name": "Kirugi Joseph Laiboni M'Mukindia",
"slug": "kirugi-mmukindia"
},
"content": " Thank you. Hon. Members, as you know, we have listened very carefully to the arguments advanced by Mr. M. Kilonzo and other hon. Members regarding the constitutionality of this Bill. In fact, Mr. Wamwere was asking me under what Standing Order would I allow it. I said, the Speaker can allow an hon. Member to raise a question of major importance to such a Bill. I was listening specifically to the actual provisions in the Bill that Mr. M. Kilonzo would have mentioned as being inconsistent with the Constitution. If I can remember correctly he mentioned that you need to define who a journalist is. I do not know if you defined who a lawyer or an engineer is that prejudices the profession. Does that interfere with a Constitutional right? I, personally, do not believe so in terms of defining a profession. The other issue that Mr. M. Kilonzo raised was the fact that you have defined a code of conduct. By so doing, perhaps, you introduce restrictions on the freedom of the journalist. The question then that comes to mind is; if you defined the code of conduct of an engineer, a doctor or a lawyer, does that prejudice your ability to do your job? Honestly, would it? Again, I do not believe that, that in itself would prejudice your right under the Constitution. Also, there are things like punishment. For example, the fact that one has to register as a journalist. Again, if you are a professional, I think registration is required. Mr. Raila raised a question and quoted Section 3 of the Constitution. It regarded supremacy. I think this Section just states that our Constitution is supreme. I think nobody would argue against that. So, Mr. Raila, you were quite right. It is supreme! Having said that, I need to read Section 79(1) together with Section 79(2), especially subsections (a) and (b). Now, the subsection that Mr. Muturi has read and which applies to public officers is correct as far as public officers are concerned. However, it does not invalidate subsection 2(a) and (b) which says to the extent that the law in question makes provision:- \"(a) that is reasonably required in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or, (b) that is reasonably required for the purpose of protecting the reputations, rights and freedoms of other persons or private lives of persons concerned in legal proceedings, preventing the disclosure of information---\" So, I do not believe that subsection 2(c) invalidates (a) and (b). Again, Prof. Anyang'-Nyong'o, raised the issue of code of conduct. As I said, I do not see how that would prejudice the freedom of a journalist to do his or her job. Mr. Raila also raised the issue of defining the duties of a journalist. He mentioned something to do with the fact that journalists have to be fair. Prof. Anyang'-Nyong'o also raised the same issue on fairness. Whenever it is recognised that an inaccurate, misleading or distorted story has been published or broadcast, it should be corrected promptly. Prof. Anyang'-Nyong'o wondered who will recognise that a journalist has misbehaved. I supposed that would have to be defined in the Bill itself. The Bill, itself, does not provide for that. I think it should provide the person who is supposed to recognise that. That, in itself, does not go against the Constitution. That is because, in all fairness, even our Constitution obviously promotes equity. If we believe that our Constitution promotes equity, then fairness, surely, is something that July 4, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 2289 we must accept whether it comes from journalists, lawyers, engineers or others. So, I do believe that if you read Section 29(1) on its own, then Mr. M. Kilonzo will be quite right. However, we need to amend the Constitution - Section 79(1) and 79(2), delete it completely in order for your argument to be valid. For as long as you have Section 79(2) (a) and (b), it invalidates your arguments. Therefore, on that basis, my ruling is that the Bill is Constitutional. It does not go against the Constitution. Therefore, debate may continue. Hon. Muchiri, you have the Floor."
}