HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 251364,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/251364/?format=api",
"text_counter": 274,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Keter",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 169,
"legal_name": "Charles Cheruiyot Keter",
"slug": "charles-keter"
},
"content": "Thank you for that correction, Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir. I will use the page numbers to make it easier. I will now move to the consequential amendments. On page 414, Section 2 of the Matrimonial Act is proposed to be amended. This section defines marriage thus: \"Marriage means the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others.\" Why are we trying to remove the definition of marriage? I know that when they removed the definition of marriage in Britain some time back, it created room for homosexuality and lesbianism. So, unless this is withdrawn, I will not support that proposed amendment. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, still, on consequential amendments, on pages 398 and 399, there are proposals to amend the Evidence Act. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, according to Standing Order No.96, any clause which has an impact on the Constitution has to be reproduced in this Bill. If you look at the consequential amendments, you will notice that this has not been done. I have been told that there is a copy which should have accompanied the Bill, but I have not seen it. That is the copy which may be containing the consequential amendments. The Chairman of the Departmental Committee on Administration of Justice and Legal Affairs has said the Bill will be looked at, so that the amendments can be incorporated. This must be done. This Bill seeks to make sexual offences a capital offence, which is not bailable, which is contrary to Section 72(5) of the Constitution. So, what we are discussing is against the Constitution. If I were the Mover, I would have this clause removed or corrected. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to repeal Section 163(1)(d) of the Evidence Act, which says:- \"When a man is prosecuted for rape or an attempt to commit rape, it may be shown that the prosecutrix was of generally immoral character.\" This provision has also been left out of this Bill. If, today, a prostitute comes and says: \"So and so raped me\", how do we protect such man if we remove this provision? There must be proof to that effect. Therefore, this provision should also have been included. I do not know whether it was left out intentionally or by mistake. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, another issue I want to raise is the time of reporting rape, which is found on page 381 of the Bill. Clause 36(b) says:- \"---the length of any delay between the alleged commission of such offence and the reporting of the offence\". If this Bill becomes law, somebody you knew 20 years back can come today and claim that you sexually assaulted her. The accused person will not even have a chance of knowing who the complainant is, or who is giving evidence against him. The Bill allows even lawyers to give evidence against you. Therefore, the way I see it, many people will become victims of this Bill if we pass it into law. You may have had a friend 20 years back. That person can come up today and say that you sexually assaulted her. Since this Bill does not provide for one to be released even on cash bail, the accused person will be locked in for five years for a crime you did not commit. Therefore, this is an area which has to be looked at. 784 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES April 27, 2006 Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, another issue I want to raise is found on page 399 of the Bill, Clause 4(2), which says:- \"Section 19 of the Marriage Act is amended by repealing the words \"twenty-one years\" and substituting therefor the words \"eighteen years\". How does marriage become a sexual offence? Why are we lowering the age from 21 years to 18 years? I thought 21 is a good age. Therefore, I propose that the current age of 21 years should remain. Lowering the age limit will encourage people to marry young people. I hope that the Mover will look at this Section. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, another issue I would like to raise concerns prostitution. This is captured on page 361, under the heading \"Exploitation of Prostitution\". Clause 17 seeks to provide as follows:- \"Any person who (a) intentionally causes or incites another person to become a prostitute; or (b) intentionally controls any of the activities of another person relating to that person's prostitution; and does so for or in expectation of gain for him or herself or a third person, is guilty of an offence and is liable upon conviction---\" Where has prostitution been outlawed in this Bill? Under transitional provisions, on page 397, the Bill goes on to say as follows:- \"For greater certainty, the provisions of this Act shall supersede any existing provisions of any other law with respect to sexual related offences.\" We know that prostitution is outlawed by the Constitution. This Bill only seeks to punish the agents of prostitution but it does not seek to punish the people who are directly engaged in the actual job. So, I hope that the Mover will take this aspect into consideration. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not want to continue raising any more issues. My colleagues will, definitely, raise other issues. I have a list of 15 issues, which I will pass over to the Mover. If they are incorporated in the Bill, I will have no objection to it because rape and defilement affect all of us. We do not feel happy when people as young as four years are raped. Such people are mad and must be excluded from society."
}