Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 483777,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/483777/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 331,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kaluma",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1565,
        "legal_name": "George Peter Opondo Kaluma",
        "slug": "george-peter-opondo-kaluma"
    },
    "content": "I needed to indicate to the House that when this Bill was published a lot of media reports not so well informed came about that there could be self interest and this and that. May I clarify that this is possibly one of the first Private Members’ Bill to be put through the system of Parliament for publication. I gave this Bill to Parliament as early as May, 2013. Of course, our systems go through pre-publication and other processes and that is why it was delayed. Looking at the beautiful provisions in our Constitution against the Children Act, I personally, sued in my own name in 2010 and those who care to do research will tell you that in 2010 there is Case No.224, George Peter Kaluma vs. the Attorney-General. I looked at the beautiful Constitution and the Children Act as it was and I went to court to say that time had come to ensure that the inconsistencies that we have in the Children Act against our Constitution needed to be addressed. Luckily, I would be elected to this great House by the great people of Homa Bay Town Constituency before the matter was concluded in the constitutional court of Kenya sitting at Milimani. So, we took the opportunity to deal with them. What are we dealing with? Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, I will now take the House to the specific amendments that I am seeking to bring to the Bill. I am only bringing the constitutional stipulations which are prescribed in Article 53 to the Children Act. What that act does, look at Section 24(1) and (2) of the Act. Those provisions assert the same constitutional provisions for children born of married parentage. For such children, they have a right to care and protection from their parents. When you go to Sub-section (3) and other provisions that we seek to delete, they seek to deal with children whose parents are not married. It says thus: “For children born of unmarried parents, the responsibility shall vest in the mother”. The father only attains responsibility if the father goes to court and gets an order granting the father parental responsibility to provide, care and protect the child. That is discrimination because we have one law, our Constitution saying that all children are equal whether or not their parents are the same. We now have an Act of Parliament saying that the children of a married parentage will be treated in the manner that the Constitution prescribes and the children whose parents are not married – remember the issue of marriage is not the issue for a child – the father will not be responsible for care and protection and will not hold parental responsibility unless that father goes to the Children’s Court and gets a court order directing that he be responsible for those particular issues relating to the child. The other thing that you will see as an option being prescribed in this provision is that as against going to court, a biological father of a child whose mother that father is not married to will only have responsibility to provide for that child. This is discrimination against the child. If that biological father enters into what the Act calls, “parental responsibility agreement with the mother”--- You go to the mother and you agree on how to take care of your child even if you are willing; and it has to be in writing. Sections 26 and 27 of the Act that I am seeking to repeal talk about the form and manner in which that parental responsibility agreement is enforced. What am I saying? The rights that we have in the Constitution vest in all children. When you say that a biological father, even if willing must do a parental responsibility agreement or must get a court order to provide for the child, really, you are limiting the enjoyment of the rights of a child to care and protection from both biological parents as already prescribed in the The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}