Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 479858,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/479858/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 263,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Saney",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2988,
        "legal_name": "Ibrahim Abdi Saney",
        "slug": "ibrahim-abdi-saney"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, the Mining Bill is good for all intents and purposes, especially in the management and regulation of the many minerals being discovered in the country. More importantly, the Bill comes at a better time when there are pockets of conflict related to mineral discoveries and management. However, on the Bill, I have a few comments to make. Under Clause 2, we have the categories of minerals that this Bill seeks to regulate and manage. It seems this is a closed bracket. With scientific advancement, there are minerals that will be discovered that may not be in our books. It is prudent to relax that bracket and further relax the mineral classified under the Second Schedule by including other minerals. We need not legislate for specific minerals. We are legislating for today and tomorrow. It is, therefore, only fair for this House to make rules that will serve the interests of the generations to come. Clause 25(1) is about the appointment of the chairman to the corporation’s board. It gives huge discretionary power to the appointing authority; the President. He is the one to establish whether that will be an executive or non-executive chairman. That will be prone to abuses, political patronage and fear. I am afraid it will hold production and output that is related to this office. Further, the Cabinet Secretary is given so many powers from licensing to other decision-making matters. This should have been left to the regulatory body; the directorate which is a professional body so formed to manage matters of minerals. Further on matters of dispute resolution mechanism, any dispute resolution mechanism must be independent. This is envisaged in our Constitution and should not be watered down. Referring negotiations after a dispute has failed to a Cabinet Secretary will not augur well with our Constitution and I believe is ill advised. Part 10 of the Bill gives diamond a preferential position to the exclusion of other minerals and that is not well couched. This could be misconstrued as the basis of according preference to diamonds as opposed to other minerals of potential equal benefits to the country. With those few remarks I beg to support."
}