HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 244399,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/244399/?format=api",
"text_counter": 439,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Muturi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 215,
"legal_name": "Justin Bedan Njoka Muturi",
"slug": "justin-muturi"
},
"content": "Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. I wish to say a few things about the proposed Witness Protection Bill. As some of my colleagues said yesterday, by passing this Bill, Kenya joins the list of other progressive nations around Africa which have for long seen the need towards a law that protects witnesses and, particularly, whistle blowers. I am guardedly using the term \"whistle blowers\" because, in the Bill, the Attorney-General has not distinguished what kind of offences it is proposed that witnesses will seek protection. In the Bill, the Attorney-General says that it is to protect witnesses or people who are likely to be witnesses, or those who have even recorded statements with the police with regard to criminal offences. I want to congratulate the Attorney- General because, for the first time, in a long time, he has begun to be innovative. There is need for us to be guarded. This is because when we talk about criminal offences, I believe we are not just 1928 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES July 6, 2006 talking about those within the Penal Code, but all manner of crimes. Because we are just beginning, it would be good that the Attorney-General considers specifying the kind of offences over which witnesses may seek protection and may be admitted to the witness protection programme. If this law is not properly applied, and it is made to apply for all manner of crimes, then we run the risk of very many Kenyans being tried for offences whose disclosure has come from people whose identity may remain mysterious forever. If a person is to face a charge of treason, for example, and the person making that allegations runs to court or to the Attorney-General and enters into some memorandum of understanding - and we all know the story about memoranda of understanding in Kenya - that person could actually languish in remand prison for a very long period, and he may never know who made the allegation that he committed this extremely heinous crime. It is for that reason that I would like to suggest to the Attorney-General to specify the crimes for which witnesses may be admitted into this programme. The law is good and I support it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in this country, we know that grand corruption is a serious matter. We are daily being bombarded with stories about this or that person bribing the other, and leaders being accused of this or the other. In my view, grand corruption offences would be some of the best offences to fit in this programme. Witnesses who have evidence that certain conduct or offences under the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act are being committed should be among the very first to be considered for admission into the Witness Protection Programme (WPP). Sadly, about two years ago, we saw Transparency International feting some Kenyans, one of them a policeman and another a former employee of the Central Bank of Kenya, for being the very first people who spoke out about Goldenberg. I think he was a very courageous Kenyan. I believe that there are several other Kenyans who may know so much about Goldenberg notwithstanding the so-called Goldenberg Commission of Inquiry Report. It may be the case that there may be very many Kenyans who know much more about Goldenberg, but for fear of being exposed, are still staying out there not disclosing what they know about what happened within the Goldenberg transactions. I can see somebody wanting to tell me that it should appear mutatismutandis with the issue of Anglo Leasing. It is quite possible that there may be quite a number of Kenyans out there, possibly because of their relationship with the people who are alleged to have been involved in that scam, who might not be willing to come forward to the authorities, but who would otherwise be very willing to come forth, of course, I hope not through the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) but through an inquiry that will be filed in the High Court. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am happy that in the Bill, there is a proposal that an application be made in the High Court to determine whether or not a particular person and/or intended witness would qualify under the programme. My proposal in that regard would be that, an inquiry of this nature, desirable and important as it may be, should be conducted in the same manner that the former preliminary inquiries used to be conducted. This should be conducted only at the level of the High Court and in camera. I am happy that the law provides that such inquiries and applications be heard in camera. It would be futile to expect that a person who seeks protection is exposed to the full glare of the public because they want to make certain disclosures. I appeal to the Attorney- General to consider, maybe when we come to the Committee of the whole House, situations whereby he will have specified the nature of the offences which will entitle a person to qualify under this programme. I am happy that, indeed, the qualification entitles a witness to even change their identity. In that regard, I could appear before the Attorney-General and henceforth cease being known as Mr. Muturi and, maybe, assume a name like Shitswila!"
}