Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 253552,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/253552/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 224,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Prof. Anyang'-Nyong'o",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 193,
        "legal_name": "Peter Anyang' Nyong'o",
        "slug": "peter-nyongo"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. I rise to support the Motion. I personally took a very keen interest in the Anglo Leasing issue and my former colleague in the Cabinet, my friend hon. Murungi, has actually said that I have gone the extra mile to contribute to the debate on Anglo Leasing in public which is true. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is also true that I have had discussions with Mr. John Githongo. In my presentation today, I will have to inform the House why I thought these discussions were important. I am going to divide my discussion on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) into five parts. First, I would like to establish from the point of view of the Report whether there was indeed an obstruction of justice by obstructing investigations by Mr. Githongo. Secondly, again from the point of departure of the Report, I would like to see how the Civil Service that we inherited from the previous regime when I was in Government did indeed fudge the law to facilitate corruption. Thirdly, it has been said in the Report that Mr. John Githongo was instructed or pleaded with to go easy on the investigations he was carrying out on Anglo Leasing. Did this going easy involve presidential complicity in the cover-up? Fourthly, I would like to find out from the point of departure of the Report whether what is called resource mobilisation was a pseudonym for corruption carried out or encouraged by senior people in Government and whether this too was 494 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES April 18, 2006 done with presidential complicity. Finally, the Government on the other side has argued very painstakingly that money was returned and it is my former colleague in Government, hon. Mwiraria, who has just said today that money was returned. If money was returned, so argues the Government, no offence or crime was committed. I would like to argue that when a thief steals your hat and returns it because he fears the police is coming to get him, theft is still done."
}