Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 517888,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/517888/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 226,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. H.K. Njuguna",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1508,
        "legal_name": "Humphrey Kimani Njuguna",
        "slug": "humphrey-kimani-njuguna"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, hon. Speaker. I rise in support of these Senate amendments. I have gone through them. In Clause 2, the Senate is merely aligning the Bill to Article 27 of the Constitution on equality and freedom from discrimination, Article 54 on persons with disabilities, Article 55 on the youth and Article 227(1) which says that:- “When a State organ or any other public entity contracts for goods and services, it shall do so in accordance with a system that is fair, equitable, transparent and cost-effective.” I do not see anything wrong in that clause. In fact, it is merely upholding the spirit of the Constitution in matters of public procurement. I have no problem with that clause. In fact, I can see where the Senate is coming from. It is merely supporting hon. Sakaja’s amendments. Looking at Clause 3, where the Senate amendment is talking about disadvantaged groups, persons with disabilities, women and youth, those are the same things that we were talking about when hon. Sakaja was moving his amendments. We said 30 per cent of our public procurement should go to the youth. Recognition was made that when we are talking about public procurement, it is big business in a political process. Currently, talking about 60 per cent of our annual budget translates to about Kshs1.1 trillion. So, when we give them the 30 per cent, which the Senate is seconding we are taking care of our youth, women and disadvantaged groups. I support that Clause. I see nothing extraordinary. In fact, they are in support of our amendments. The amendments they are proposing, like the “Cabinet Secretary” instead of the “Minister,” are correct. The earlier law was talking about the Minister. But now the law talks about the Cabinet Secretary. There is nothing wrong. They are talking about what is there. They were just polishing the amendments that hon. Sakaja had moved in this House."
}