Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 486091,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/486091/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 212,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Gikaria",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2489,
        "legal_name": "David Gikaria",
        "slug": "david-gikaria"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, hon. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I do not know whether to support the Bill or not, based on what I have seen happen within my constituency. I think this is a good Bill. We, as Africans, are always regarded as a dark continent, full of diseases, wars, fighting and things like that. The enactment of this Bill into law will change the perceptions of the international community about Kenya. This shows how advanced we are, as a country, and how we have changed in the recent past, to be able to address some of the key issues that have been affecting our families. Of course, it was said here yesterday that we are not enacting a bedroom law. I want to agree that it will assist. Looking at the victims of domestic violence, one realises that this Bill does not only talk about a husband and a wife. It also talks about children and siblings who live within the same household, and many other relationships that we need to consider as we talk about domestic violence. Hon. Speaker, much has been said about the interpretation of Clause 2. It is true that it is vague and the Committee will be looking at it with a view to bringing amendments during the Committee stage. We can change some these things. One of the provisions that need to be changed is that on harassment and the explanation given to it. Clause 2(b) of the Bill says that loitering around some place and watching the goings on should be treated as harassment. That is a vague provision, which can be misused, just like my colleague has said. If you live within the same neighbourhood with a person you had been in a relationship with, of course you cannot shut your eyes to avoid seeing that person. So, this bit needs to be corrected with a view to improving some of these provisions, including the provision of Clause 3. The meaning of “domestic violence” and “sexual violence within a marriage” should be looked at. Of course, our culture has really changed. Some of these practices are acceptable. As it was said yesterday, in some culture, if you pay a dowry of three goats, you have all the sexual rights with your wife. So, we need to take our diverse cultural practices into consideration. Hon. Speaker, Clause 3 needs to be looked deeply because it has duplications. Clause 4(b) talks about somebody who “has previously been married to the other person”, while Clause 4(d) talks about a person who “has been in marriage with the other person in respect of whom a marriage has been dissolved or declared null”. In my understanding, that is one and the same thing. So, we need to delete one of them. Clause 4(2) (a) mentions persons who should not be regarded to be having a domestic relationships even though such persons may be living in the same house. It talks about employer-employee relationships. Under paragraph (iii), the Bill also talks about employee-employer relationships. Again, I understand this to be one and the same thing. We need to distinguish between the two provisions, so that we do not become repetitive in the same law."
}