Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 590745,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/590745/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 45,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. A.B. Duale",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 15,
        "legal_name": "Aden Bare Duale",
        "slug": "aden-duale"
    },
    "content": "espoused in the Constitution. Firstly, the Bill does not provide for a clause to prevent courts of law from interfering on matters before Parliament, a key tenant of parliamentary privilege and the spirit of separation of powers. Secondly, the Bill as considered contains provisions that may be said to offend the freedom of expression, media and access to information as provided for by Articles 33, 34 and 35 and more specifically, refer to as gagging the media. There is, therefore, need for the House to consider the amendments passed. Thirdly, if this Bill is passed, it will retrogressively in more ways than one, be a great disservice for the nation should it come into effect as it is. On the matter of officers of Parliament having powers of police officers, for example, a Chairperson of a Committee of Parliament meeting in Mombasa could need to call for an assistance of a police officer where the meeting place happens to be intruded by a stranger. So, in the clause that we passed yesterday, we talked of a police officer and not the Serjeant-at-Arms who usually goes with the Members when they go to Mombasa for committee meetings. Similarly, as a case of a Member of Parliament who enters the Chamber with a firearm and causes disruption, the officers of Parliament would not have the mandate to restrain him or her and the Speaker would have to allow the police officer to access the Chamber and contain the situation. This, in my opinion, could set a new trend in the parliamentary practice. Fourthly, it is my desire going forward, that the Committee on Powers and Privileges should take leadership in the sponsoring of such Bills. This will allow for inclusion of all stakeholders including key end users as enshrined in Article 118 of the Constitution. Members should be modest enough to accept that due consideration may not have been taken during the passage of the Bill. It is, therefore, prudent that we consider deferring decision on this matter until further consultations have been made. In the absence of this, I will be requesting my colleagues to consider rejecting this Bill if my request today, as I said now, will not be considered. In the absence of whatever I have said, I will be requesting my colleagues in the House to consider rejecting this Bill to allow for the introduction of a more elaborate and comprehensive Bill that will take care of the interests of all of us and the citizens of our country. However, that is a route I will not wish to take considering that there are other available options at our disposal including deferring, doing more consultation and dealing with the two or three Articles that affect both Parliament and Serjeant-at-Arms and the one that affects the media in Articles 34 and 35. I rest my case. Thank you."
}