Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 626875,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/626875/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 509,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Okoth",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 12482,
        "legal_name": "Kenneth Odhiambo Okoth",
        "slug": "kenneth-odhiambo-okoth"
    },
    "content": "Yes, Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman. If you look at the definition of “intermediary” given in the Bill, you will find that it means a person who has seized a complainant or an accused person, to communicate in the court in accordance with Section 69, whether it is a translator or sign language assistance. It could even be in a situation where we have a victim protection case and the victim’s identity is hidden and the communication has to go through somebody else. I would urge the Vice-Chair of the Committee not to delete this because as Clause 69 says; “where a complainant or an accused person appears in court in a jurisdiction where no legal aid provider is available.” I urge Members to support it, to keep it this way. Earlier on we said that the Service may establish its services and offices in 47 counties instead of “shall”. It envisions that there will be a situation and a gap in which parts of the country will not have these Legal Aid Bills as we progressively move towards enforcing them. This will help us. We can say that the intermediaries, in such a case, should not charge a fee and things like those. I beg that we keep it instead of deleting it. 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."
}