Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 620611,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/620611/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 335,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Oyugi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 444,
        "legal_name": "Augostinho Neto Oyugi",
        "slug": "augostinho-neto-oyugi"
    },
    "content": "Clause 14 of the Bill has a very dangerous inclusion. If you allow me, I will read a part which provides that:- “The validity of any proceedings of the Board shall not be affected by a vacancy among its members or by any defect in the appointment of any member or by the fact that the person who was not entitled to do so took part in the proceedings of the Board”. What if the person who is part of the board proceedings is one that tilts the whole discussion of the board? There ought to be a deletion of various sections, so that a person who is not a member of the board ought not to participate in the functions of the board because they can be tilting the decisions of the board in a manner that affects how it proceeds. Clause 26 of the Bill gives power to the director, but again takes away that power. It gives the director power of delegation, but on the same arm, it wants the director, having been given the power to delegate duties to still seek the board’s approval. That is something you can deal with, so that the director is left to use the discretion in a manner that makes him have the wherewithal. This is because they will be directly culpable in terms of misuse of that particular power. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, I like Clause 36 of this Bill because it talks about people who are refugees under the Refugees Act. These are stateless or indigent persons. Remands and prisons in Kenya are full of persons who are stateless, refugees and people who cannot speak for themselves. To have indigent people included in this category of persons is an interesting inclusion. We ought to support that. Clause 36(4)(a) of the Bill moving downwards has dangerous provisions. This section speaks to things I would like to highlight: It says that:- “The cost of the proceedings is justifiable in the light of the expected benefits”. This is a constitutional right. You cannot tell me that the cost of helping me earn my right are so costly or ought to be justifiable. It is a right that you cannot limit within the meaning of Article 25 of the Constitution because it is non-derogable. My time is running out, but I would like to summarise. We had a lot of interest in this Bill. I will run to catch up on one. My colleague, Hon. Ken Okoth, is asking me to request your indulgence for about two more minutes to prosecute a couple of these things."
}