Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 249100,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/249100/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 389,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Ms. Karua",
    "speaker_title": "The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 166,
        "legal_name": "Martha Wangari Karua",
        "slug": "martha-karua"
    },
    "content": " Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, I beg to oppose the amendment on Clause 28(1). The Member who has just spoken has explained why. This Clause is not aiming at a third party. It is aiming at the perpetrator of the offence. So, if the pharmacist who sold the drug is not the one administering it, then he is not the one who will be liable. If you read carefully, it says, \"Any person commits an offence if he intentionally distributes or administers substance to another person with the intention of stupefying.\" So, you have to distribute to another person with the intention to 1096 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES May 31, 2006 stupefy that person. Therefore, if a Mr. X goes to the chemist and buys a substance, it is not the pharmacist who is liable, but Mr. X, who then distributes it to Y with an intention to stupefy Y. Therefore, this is not targeting innocent people who are legitimately selling drugs, but the actual person who commits the act. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, to allay the fears expressed by hon. Kembi-Gitura, Clause 28(2) is totally harmless. Before you read Clause 28(2), the complainant will have to have first proved by evidence that this substance was administered by that person. Once that is proved, then that person in their defence can avail the defence themselves by showing the court that they had no intention of stupefying. I am assuming that the substance would have to be something that you can distribute legally, not the sort of things that are being given in buses and stupefying people and then they are robbed. So, Clause 28(2) very much depends on what substance we are discussing. There are enough safeguards in this Bill and---"
}