Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 252113,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/252113/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 347,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Dr. Khalwale",
    "speaker_title": "The Assistant Minister for East African Community",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 170,
        "legal_name": "Bonny Khalwale",
        "slug": "bonny-khalwale"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, for your clarification. For hon. Mbarire's information I have two daughters in universities. One is at Moi University and the other is at Kenyatta University, and I do not want them to get marks for sex. I am saying that my daughters at the April 26, 2006 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 755 university are very important. But there are lecturers who should also be protected by the law. Some of the students may accuse lecturers falsely. I hope that you will soon give hon. Mbarire a chance to express her arguments. I want hon. Members to refer to Section 28(2) on page 374. In this subsection we are told that in the proceedings on an offence under this section, it is for the accused person to prove that he or she did not distribute, administer or cause any substance to be taken with a view to engaging in sexual activity with another person. When you look at this section critically, you will see that there are two loopholes. The first loophole is that my professional colleagues who run chemists will be affected. Doctors who sell drugs will fall prey to this section. Once these doctors sell a drug, the law does not require them to follow clients to make sure that it is used according to the prescription. This subsection says that somebody who sells drugs must prove that he did not sell the drug with the intention of luring a young girl or a woman to rape. I am begging this House to change this clause to protect doctors who run chemists. I know hon. Muite is very good in law. He and hon. Kajwang should look for good English in which to express this provision. We should say that the person who sold the drug will be held responsible only if he failed to dispense drugs on a prescription. But once he or she dispenses drugs on a prescription, he or she should be left alone. It is up to the person using that drug to know how to use it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the other hidden thing in this clause is, why should the accused person be asked to prove anything? I am not a lawyer, but I hear lawyers say that the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor. Why does this clause make it so easy for the prosecutor, so that someone who is framed would be easily jailed. Let the law be such that the burden of proof remains with the prosecutor. A learned hon. Member from my political party is reminding me that it is a constitutional issue. I would also want to refer hon. Members to Section 29, which attempts to criminalise trade in certain drugs. This matter must be addressed very seriously. As we talk about drugs that cause sedation, I remind hon. Members who think it is a joke that the thing we take in the evening after 4.30 p.m or 6.30 p.m. called alcohol is actually a drug. So, the day you will appear in court accused by your partner of buying her Tusker or Smirnoff, you will realise its seriousness. In court they will not be talking about alcohol. They will talk about a drug. Hon. M. Kilonzo will refer to it as a drug called alcohol. I assure you hon. Members that when you appear in court accused by your girlfriend, you will be jailed because of luring her to take a drug called alcohol. Who will defend you unless this law is good. Lastly, I want to refer to Section 31, which talks about circumcision. I believe in culture, and for God's sake, do not use this House to regulate culture. We should not use this House to criminalise culture. To ask certain people in this country to stop circumcising girls is like asking Luhyas to stop circumcising boys, and they will not accept it."
}