Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 603454,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/603454/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 85,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kang’ata",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1826,
        "legal_name": "Irungu Kang'ata",
        "slug": "irungu-kangata"
    },
    "content": "First, is the issue of the inter-play between private and public entities in this Bill. There appears to be some form of confusion. I draw your attention to Clause 2 on the interpretation of the term “Information” and I read:- “Information is defined as includes all records held by a public entity---.” So, the operative term here is public entity. It, therefore, presumes that information which has been detailed in this Bill is only the one held by a public entity. I doubt as to whether that was the original intention of the drafter of this Bill. That is because in several other clauses, there is so much reference of the term private entity. Even Article 35 which this Bill intends to effectuate clearly shows that even private information in the hands of private entity can be disclosed according to the Bill. Therefore, I would urge my dear colleague to amend Clause 2, definition of the term “information” so that it includes private entity. Secondly, I draw the attention of the drafter of this Bill to Clause 6 which is on exempt information. The way Clause 6 has been drafted appears to be limiting that right. It is what we call a draw-back clause because the Bill gives the right using the right hand and by using the left hand via Clause 6, it appears to limit that right. We have sweeping statements in Clause 6 where for instance--- Allow me your kind indulgence to read Clause 6. In 6 (b) we have a situation where it is certifying that disclosure of information is likely to:- (b) Impinge the due process of law or endanger the safety of life of any person. That disclosure will be vetoed. I would imagine any person can always cite such kind of a clause to escape the obligation to disclose information. I am minded by the other saving clause where it is provided in the same clause of Sub-Article 4 that despite anything contained in the above sub-sections, a public entity or private body may be required to disclose information where the public interest in the disclosure outweighs the harm to protected interest. That is a good promise and it checks the above limitations. However, from a drafting point of view, it makes sense for us to reduce instances where you can exempt information from disclosure. I urge my dear colleague to consider enriching Sub-Article 4 of Clause 6 where the decision as to whether information will be disclosed in regard to the circumstances set therein--- Probably, there can be some form of proceedings where you appear before the Commission. The Commission hears the representations as to why you are going to disclose or why you do not want to disclose. Therefore, you are given that right of audience to prosecute that matter before that commission. I say that because we do not want to leave this argument at the whims of the Commission. We should allow some form of proceedings where it is something that is somehow"
}