Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 405988,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/405988/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 91,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Omulele",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2145,
        "legal_name": "Christopher Omulele",
        "slug": "christopher-omulele"
    },
    "content": "we have come up with this proposal and said that we shall limit the compensation, particularly for deaths to a maximum of Kshs1 million, is a starting point. This is not to say that I am putting down the concerns of my brothers who have spoken to this clause, but it is a good thing that it is a starting point. Having said that, I have noted that compensation is provided for in Clause 30 of the proposed Bill. At Sub-clause 2, it provides that compensation shall be considered for deaths to a maximum of Kshs1 million. You will also note that at Sub-section 4, the same law proposes that compensation for crops shall be considered to be paid at the prevailing market rate. I think there is a conflict here. If we are going to compensate for crops that are lost to our wildlife at the market rates, it will only be fair for us to, at the Committee stage, to provide that human life should also be compensated at the prevailing market rate. In this regard, I would like to support my brother, hon. Gichigi, who proposed that when we are looking at compensation for the loss of human life, we should be guided by the law that rules in motor vehicle third party injuries. We will then be addressing the concerns that have been raised by all the Members who have spoken to the fact that we may not be taking human life as seriously as we ought to do. I would also wish to submit that I am happy that this Bill, specifically at Clause 32(c), has provided for a Wildlife Compensation Committee. It has set out the roles for the committee."
}