Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 406033,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/406033/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 136,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Wahome",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1700,
        "legal_name": "Alice Muthoni Wahome",
        "slug": "alice-muthoni-wahome"
    },
    "content": "Some homes still have wildlife skins; those are trophies. If one is penalized Kshs1 million as a fine, I think that could still be a challenge to most of our people. Even with regard to transportation, people hire vehicles innocently. We are also in the transport business. There are matatus. Somebody is caught with some hidden trophies in his or her luggage. The owner of the matatu is going to be penalized a fine of Kshs10 million. I think that is a big contradiction. It is really not in line with the setting of our Kenyan community. I am looking at Clause 86 and I think it needs to isolate some of those offences so that people who are here and are commercial people can be penalized a fine of Kshs10 million. However, to target innocent persons who do not even know what a trophy is, or they do not even know that wildlife items are in their vehicles, we will be coming up with a law that does not make a lot of sense. I support this Bill. It is timely. We need to support the Mover of this Bill. Clause 85 defines “hunting bush meat”. The fine imposed under this Clause is Kshs200,000. To charge such a penalty upon an ordinary Maasai or Kikuyu in Laikipia or in the Aberdares for hunting an antelope and yet, we have not even created sufficient awareness, I think that is unfair. It could as well be that the antelope came into my farm. With regard to compensation, the time limits must be clear. We do not want to keep Kenyans who have lost their families for years without them knowing when they will be compensated. Those are people who have children and who have been left without bread winners. That one must be stated clearly in this Bill. There is a proviso that must be removed from this Bill. It states that once your crops have been damaged or somebody has been killed, you have to show that there was no recklessness or carelessness on your part. You have to show that you took measures to ensure that your crops are not destroyed by, say, elephants. That proviso does not make sense, with respect. It must be deleted because it will create an avenue, a gap or a loophole that is likely and capable of being misinterpreted and misused to deny rightful owners compensation as is expected in Clause 31. I am talking about the proviso in Clause 31(4) which states thus: “Provided that no compensation shall be paid where the owners of livestock, crops, and other property failed to take reasonable measures to protect such crops, livestock, and property from damage by wildlife”. How do you protect yourself from Zebras that have--- I think it is the duty of the conservatory agency---"
}