Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 249758,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/249758/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 414,
    "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, it very strange to listen to Members arguing 360 degrees away from the way they argued in 2003. The HANSARD will bear me correct! That is when this Act was passed. I wish to oppose the amendment and say the following: The amendment by the Committee is clearly a case of conflict of interest. I want to say the following: If you remove Sections 26, 27 and 28, it is better to repeal the entire Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act. I want to say that I am surprised that the Committee is very cleverly only citing Civil Application No.43 of 2006 by the Court of Appeal, where the applicant was told by the court: \"Go and agitate your case against Sections 26, 27 and 28, before the Constitutional Court!\" The application was dismissed, save for the stay. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, the Committee, although I know that it is within the knowledge of some of its Members, is omitting to tell us that the application, which was Civil Application No.54 of 2006 - Miscellaneous Civil Application for Judicial Review - and which was seeking before the Constitutional Bench for a declaration that Sections 26, 27 and 28 are unconstitutional, was finally dismissed with costs on 1st day of December, 2006. With your indulgence, Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, the court found Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act are investigatory provisions and do not change or reverse the burden of proof, nor do they offend Section 72 or Section 77 of the Constitution. Further, the court found that those sections are necessary and constitutionally justifiable. Intrusion of the privacy of a home and the property in the interest of the rights and freedoms of others and the public interest--- So, public interest here is being protected against looters or suspected looters. The court further found that it is not justifiable, in a democratic society, that communal wealth should be spirited and stashed away through corruption and economic crimes. I wish to table both the Court of Appeal and the High Court rulings, so that they become part of the permanent records of this House, and double-speak in these contributions be noted."
}