Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 249145,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/249145/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 434,
    "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 rise to oppose the amendment. If you look at what mischief is being prevented by this clause, you will realise that it is putting an obligation on the owner of the premises or the manager. Let us assume it is a hotel. Merely because a person has hired or rented the accommodation, you are hearing screams and you are refusing to intervene and yet you are the owner of those premises, this clause, if hon. Members care to listen, is not talking of a person who does not know what is happening. That is why the clause clearly says:- \"---unless it is proved that, that person through no act of omission on his or her part, was not aware that the offence was being or was intended to be committed.\" This is to give a specific obligation. We have seen it everywhere, where everybody assumes that they are their brother's keeper. If it is within your factory and you know that an offence is going on, it is not for you to turn a blind eye. You have a duty to ensure that your premises are not used for the commission of an offence. What if you saw a person entering the premises with a child? You are being called upon to start questioning, so that you can see what is happening. This is just putting a duty of care on owners of premises. I think it is wrong to say that it will cause victimisation because nobody can be convicted without explaining. Even the statement you will record with the police will either exonerate you or show that you are guilty. Hon. Members should remember that the Departmental Committee on Administration of Justice and Legal Affairs, which comprises of hawk-eyed and very serious persons, had looked at this clause and seen that there was no mischief in it. I am urging hon. Members to let this clause pass as it is and not to support those who countenance crime."
}