Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 620610,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/620610/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 334,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Oyugi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 444,
        "legal_name": "Augostinho Neto Oyugi",
        "slug": "augostinho-neto-oyugi"
    },
    "content": "need, prosecute, and go ahead to make demands for these particular rights. Provisions that will go contrary to Article 25 of the Constitution ought to be deleted. Looking at the definitions of this particular Bill, I have issues with provisions that want to include resolving of disputes using alternative dispute resolutions. The use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in law is in a world of its own. You cannot reduce the work of ADR to the work of a Legal Aid Bill. It is an important inclusion, but the provisions of the inclusions were not properly thought through. The fact that the persons who are listed to be legal aid providers in Section C of that definition are specifically a firm of advocates, my colleague, Hon. Ken Okoth, has spoken to the fact that this could be a subject of misuse. In my opinion, if the service is keen in terms of having a group of advocates, it should be advocates in the employment of the service as opposed to a bunch of advocates or a company of advocates. With that, you can end up with a legal service scheme that just looks at particular groups of advocates like Waiganjo and Ken Advocates, or Aghostinho and Ken advocates, which would not give the rights or it would be subject to misuse or abuse that a few advocate firms are getting the work. These advocates should be advocates who are in the employment of the service. An omission is in definition of “legal Aid Fund” which ought to be included. It is something we should do in terms of making amendments. Also, not included in the definitions is what a legal aid scheme ought to be. That should also be worked on. Clause 7 of the Bill speaks to the functions of service. There are a few things that I think the drafter of the Bill was just throwing in there. In Clause 7(c) of the Bill, you cannot have that part of the work of the service will be to encourage and facilitate the settlement of dispute resolutions. That is not the work of a legal aid service. Taking steps to promote public interest litigation should not be part of their work because that is a whole world of helping you realise interests, so that you cannot only limit the service to be the one in charge of trying to ensure that public litigation is encouraged. There is an interesting inclusion which I think is a good thing. Clause 9(j) includes one person nominated by the public universities that have established legal aid clinics. I believe it will go a long way in terms of helping our universities ensure that part of the practical work that students do is engaging in legal aid awareness. It is one of the things that law students engage in and give them practical examples to deal with legal problems that people face in villages. In Clause 9(6) of the Bill, there is discrimination of sorts. The drafter thinks that a person in the board of the legal service should not be a member of a governing body of a political party or an employee of a political party. My colleague, Hon. Sakaja, should be a member of the board of the legal aid scheme. I do not understand why because he is a member of a governing body of a political party, then he ought to be discriminated in case he told us he has interest. My very good friend, Hon. Mbadi, could actually be one that qualifies. I think this discrimination is not one that is well thought through. I think there ought to be an inclusion in terms of how the service offices are going to be located. The service ought to have its headquarters in Nairobi, but also moves in a manner that goes to give effect to Clause 65 of the Bill, which I will later on speak to. You cannot have a legal service that is central in Nairobi and then people across the whole country need legal aid. We need to think about decentralising the offices of the service in a manner that will give service to the people who are indigent. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}