Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 291341,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/291341/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 379,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Baiya",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 8,
        "legal_name": "Peter Njoroge Baiya",
        "slug": "peter-baiya"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wish to contribute to these various amendments. I am supporting some and proposing amendment and further amendment to some of the proposed amendments. With regard to proposed amendment to the Magistrates Court Act--- It proposes to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court as scheduled. The highest Magistrate’s Court, that is the Chief Magistrate’s Court, to increase to Kshs10 million then Kshs8 million and so on all the way to Kshs2 million. These figures are being increased substantially from what they have been. It has been proposed that most of the disputes relating to claims be dealt with or will be dealt with in the magistrates’ court. The only challenge we find in this regard is that the country is aware we are in the process of implementing judicial reforms. They have not fully been implemented. There is also the vetting of magistrates and so on. There is a danger, or risk, that if we increase these amounts too quickly some decisions may be made that will have repercussions. For this reason it might have been more prudent to increase the amounts, but at different figures; maybe from Kshs10 million to a figure like Kshs8 million. These are figures which can be reviewed time and again as experience demonstrates. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the proposal has a dramatic increase in the figures and we know that the bigger the claim amount, the more intricate and complex the legal issues become. Therefore, they really require to be handled by very experienced judicial staff. That is the reason why we would propose that the Minister considers moderating the proposed increase. With regard to the Advocates Act, Cap.16, there is a very drastic proposal to change the disciplinary committee into a disciplinary tribunal. I say this is a drastic amendment in the sense that previously, under the disciplinary committee system, it is the legal profession which has been exercising self regulation. When you bring in the disciplinary tribunal, it is an attempt to bring in a State controlled or State regulated tribunal, thereby undermining the legal profession’s existing status of self regulation. It is not made apparent why this is being proposed. It is something that is not in the nature of a miscellaneous amendments Bill. It is a very substantive amendment that brings in a policy shift, and we should really not support it without justification. Mr. Speaker, Sir, with regard to the witness protection Act, once again the amendment seeks to exempt the witness protection agency from the applicability of the State Corporations Act. The reason given is to ensure that it carries out its activities of agency covertly or not openly, owing to the very nature of its work. However, the import of the State Corporations Act is to achieve accountability in terms of the resources made available to the witness protection agency, subjecting it to the normal regular audit procedure to account for the money used. There is therefore, a misconception by this attempt to use the cloak of covert operation of the witness protection programme to shield it from the responsibility for accountability. We see no justification why a State agency cannot be held to account for the resources made available to it, that is the taxpayers resources made available to it; this it can very well do without disclosing the confidential aspect of its operation. Therefore, we will be opposing this proposed amendment."
}