Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 500515,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/500515/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 409,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Eng.) Gumbo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 24,
        "legal_name": "Nicholas Gumbo",
        "slug": "nicholas-gumbo"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, I thank you for, kindly, giving me the opportunity to contribute to this Bill, so that I can attend to some personal emergency. The intention of this Bill is very good but, in some sense, as has rightly been indicated by the Deputy Leader of Majority Party, hon. Naomi Shaban, once the Bill becomes law, it will occasion expenditure of huge sums of public funds. I hope that when we make provisions in this House for budgetary allocation, the Government will take the same into account. Even as I support the Bill, I must say that some significant amendments will be necessary, if it is to comply with constitutional intentions. I must also point out that some of the provisions of this Bill appear utopic and, in a sense, are at variance with the contemporary Kenyan scenarios. A major omission in this Bill is the fact that it does not create categories of deprivation. I thought it would be nice to distinguish deprivation before conviction, when one is merely a suspect and deprivation after conviction, when one has been proved to have committed an offence. Maybe, hon. Members recently followed a television series which was talking about some cannibal in Naivasha, who actually cannibalised fellow human beings by squeezing out their blood, eating their flesh and swallowing it with their blood. Due to shoddy investigations by the police, the particular fellow was convicted of a minor offence of unlawful detention of persons despite the fact that he had confessed on television, through interviews, that he enjoyed eating people’s flesh as well as raping and molesting women. With all the rights that we are providing in this Bill, this fellow who has killed innocent Kenyans and traumatised one of the ladies who was being interviewed---In fact, the lady said now she cannot even associate with her friends because everybody has shunned her. Her husband left her, considering her a rape victim. One of the ladies whom this fellow had been “eating” alive, went and became a mental wreck. She cannot fend for herself and yet this fellow is being fattened with public resources at the expense of the innocent people he molested. People like these, who clearly exhibit animalistic tendencies, in my view, do not deserve what this Bill provides; as these are human beings in appearance, but beasts at heart. How do you eat a fellow human being, squeeze the blood from a fellow human being and swallow it with the flesh and say that it was nice and the best thing you have ever eaten in your life? The penalty system does not appear capable of punishing a fellow like this; even after it has been identified that he did not even have a mental problem. That is why I am saying that the intentions of this Bill may be good but, in some ways it appears utopist and clearly it has to make a distinction between the liberties that people are deprived of, before conviction and after conviction."
}