Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 641728,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/641728/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 194,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Nderitu",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2546,
        "legal_name": "Francis Waweru Nderitu",
        "slug": "francis-waweru-nderitu"
    },
    "content": "Secretary (CS) but some of these functions are outright. On the issue of registration of titles, the work of the NLC is only to advise on policy matters and comprehensive registration of land. So, we find it a bit worrying when some of our colleagues say that there are some powers that we are trying to remove from the NLC and we are dishing them to the CS. So, we are very keen on that. I am very sure that if we pass this Bill, the problems that we have been experiencing will not be there at all. Under Clause 13, the Department of Survey is obsolete. On authority in determination of boundary, there are very clear guidelines on who should do that. On the authority and responsibility for survey, we are not at all removing the powers from them because this is a devolved function. The Ministry has a role in supervision and as the process goes on, we want to be sure that they are aware of whatever is being registered. So, for a proper functioning land mechanism system, the two bodies have to work together. We do not see a situation where the NLC can work independently exclusive of the Ministry. There is the issue of the minimum and maximum land acreage. We have tried to look into the matter and as a Committee and like my colleague who talked last, there seems to be a lot of worries on this. As a Committee we tried to deliberate on the issue from the word go. We were brought some scientific formulas that we tried to determine the minimum and maximum land acreage but we still did not reach a conclusion. Because this is not a stand-alone Bill, I do not see why this should be a worry. The issue is: Has the intent of the Constitution been taken care of? It is not a simple issue as one would say the minimum acreage is one or two thousand. As the amendment puts it clearly, we found that if we give that role to the CS, the issue of minimum and maximum acreage needs more effort and we wanted to give them time to do that. The Eviction Bill is also a thorny issue and should be looked into. Whereas we have not gotten a stand-alone Bill, the Bill expressly gives us the spirit of the Constitution. We are looking for an orderly and humane way of eviction of those people who find themselves in the wrong parcels of land. With those few remarks, I support the Bill. We came across very many groups of interested people who gave us very many proposals on amendments and as we move along, all of them will be considered when we move clause by clause. Thank you."
}