HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 244404,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/244404/?format=api",
"text_counter": 444,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Githae",
"speaker_title": "The Assistant Minister for Transport",
"speaker": {
"id": 159,
"legal_name": "Robinson Njeru Githae",
"slug": "robinson-githae"
},
"content": " Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to contribute to this very important Bill. Firstly, I must commend the Attorney-General for coming up with this Bill, which is long overdue. If this Bill had been in existence, most of the cases that have been lost by the prosecution or even by the Attorney-General himself would not have been lost. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I come to my substantive contribution, I would like to disagree with my learned colleague, friend and former classmate, who said that it is necessary for the Attorney-General to list all the offences under which the Witness Protection Programme is available. In my view, we should not go that direction. We should leave it to the discretion of the Attorney-General to decide which offences require witness protection. If he tries to list down the offences in respect of which a witness may qualify for protection, he may miss a very obvious case. I think it is sufficient that the Attorney-General has given certain guidelines under Clause 6(1). It gives the criteria by which the Attorney-General can consider a witness for protection. Clause 6(1)(a) stipulates the seriousness of the offence to which any relevant evidence or statement relates. To me, this is sufficient. It should be the seriousness of the offence, not necessarily capital offences or any other offence of that nature. So, in my view, we should not take the direction of listing down the offences. We should leave that to the discretion of the Attorney- General because, whether an offence is serous or not, depends on the circumstances. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, going back to my substantive comments, as I said, this Bill is long overdue. If we had in place the law being envisaged through this Bill, most of the cases that the prosecution has lost due to lack of evidence would not have been lost. A lot of the so-called 1930 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES July 6, 2006 \"whistle blowers\" in Kenya have suffered. These people thought that they were helping the institutions, but most of them were condemned. Employees who revealed evidence against their organisations were dismissed. Even in the public sector, we are aware of cases where civil servants who volunteered information concerning corruption or illegal acquisition of land were transferred to very remote areas as a form of punishment, instead of them being commended or promoted. If the law being sought by this Bill existed then, it would have protected them. However, all is not lost because, in this country, we do not have a statute of limitation. A person can be taken to court for an offence that was committed as long ago as it happened. We are not like Germany, where they have statutes of limitation. So, even with regard to those cases where the Attorney-General was unable to proceed with prosecution because he had no evidence, if he were to offer the facilities proposed in this Bill, I am sure he will get people who will be in a position to volunteer information which would lead to successful prosecution of those past cases. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, an hon. Member who spoke earlier said that in Kenya, nobody honours memoranda of understanding. I think he was talking about political memoranda of understanding. What is being sought by this Bill is more of a contract. The purpose is to ensure that before the Attorney-General commits himself to giving protection to prospective witnesses, he will have an idea of the kind of evidence they will give, so that they do not waste his time. The time for this Bill has now come. Once this Bill is passed, public prosecution of cases will be successful. As everybody is aware, the main reason why it is difficult to have a successful prosecution of corruption cases is the fact that our anti-corruption laws make it an offence for both the giver and the taker. If you say that you gave a bribe, you have confirmed participating in corruption. Likewise, if you say that you accepted a bribe, you have confirmed taking part in corruption. That is why it is very difficult to get any successful prosecution in corruption cases. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in corruption, people do not enter into agreements on what they intend to do or what they intend to give in return when something is done for them. The Witness Protection Bill will come to rectify such weaknesses. According to the Bill, the Attorney-General is given certain powers to protect a witness's identity and provide him with a place for accommodation. The witnesses can be given certain monetary considerations for their subsistence upkeep. So, I think this Bill will help in the fight against corruption. I can go on talking for long. However, I must say that I support this Bill, which is long overdue."
}