{"id":254409,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/254409/?format=json","text_counter":245,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Mr. M. Kariuki","speaker_title":"The Assistant Minister, Office of the President","speaker":{"id":367,"legal_name":"Kariuki Mirugi","slug":"kariuki-mirugi"},"content":" Mr. Speaker, Sir, going a little back, I did express my reservations at the time the Report was tabled here, but I am happy that Mr. Speaker was able to deal with my preliminary objection and he said that public interest is supreme. The only point that I would like to make with regard to that, is that I appreciate your sentiments that these were extra-ordinary circumstances, which required to be dealt with in an extra-ordinary manner. For purposes of consistency, it is important to appreciate that the language of the law does not change; whether it is during peace or war. The language of the law is the same and there are no extra-ordinary situations that can change the law. Mr. Speaker, Sir, having put your ruling the way you did, it is a lesson for all of us to learn that we are enjoined to stick to the mandate of the Committee, so that extra-ordinary situations are not developed and we take a lot of time discussing them. Those were some of the challenges that the Leader of the Official Opposition said that the Committee had to handle. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have not had the advantage of looking at the many exhibits which have been referred to in the Report. But in the course of my investigation on this matter, I have come across a number of documents which I doubt whether the Committee had the opportunity to look at. It is being stated here that a Cabinet decision was made regarding Anglo Leasing on 27th July, 2001. That is in the Report. I have not seen any exhibit to that effect. However, for the benefit of this House, because we need to put these matters in perspective, I would like to state that the Cabinet did consider a matter relating to Anglo Leasing on 27th July, 2001. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am saying this because the issue of whether this company exists or not, or was an outfit for fraud is a material issue for consideration before this House. I think we cannot hide away from that particular fact."}