Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 652746,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/652746/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 171,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Kanyua",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 981,
        "legal_name": "Priscilla Nyokabi Kanyua",
        "slug": "priscilla-nyokabi-kanyua"
    },
    "content": "In sub-Clause 1, I wish to introduce the words “cause a substantial prejudice to the national security of Kenya”. In looking at interpretation, it has become clearly apparent that “cause substantial prejudice” has been interpreted and is a well-known concept. “Undermine in law” is a little bit unclear. So, we are seeking to change the language to “cause substantial prejudice to the national security of Kenya”. Information that can cause substantial prejudice to the national security in Kenya should not be released unless other standards are met. However, at a first instance, information relating to national security that will cause substantial prejudice to the national security of Kenya should not be released. Still on the same clause, in the second part, we have the sub-clause covering the exemption on endangering the safety of life of any person. There was a typographical problem in that one. In the new amendment sought, we want to separate the exemption on impeding due process of law. Information that would impede the due process of law cannot be released. We want to separate and have another clause on endangering the safety of health or life of any person. It is just better language and arrangement. Thirdly, amendment on Clause 6 is for the coverage of information by international law or agreement between States or with an international organisation that is required to be kept confidential. There are many agreements between States and international organisations. Under both Kenyan and the international law, at a first instance, those agreements should not be open to the public unless there are reasons why they should be disclosed. It has become controversial on some of the resources that we have. So, at a first instance, we should keep those agreements confidential until such a time as the State might, in its own interest, release the information. The information that a requester requires should only be availed where it is not accessible by any other means. Where information has already been put out there in websites and is in public domain, it is unnecessary trouble on Government officers to come back and request the same information which is available in public domain. If that should happen, then a requester is not allowed to burden the State with unnecessary obligations. Lastly, we have put the offences in one clause 26 instead of reading offences in every section. A neater way of drafting is to put offences in one clause. So, we are deleting the offence here, so that it goes to the offences clause in 26. I beg to move these amendments and beg the House to accept them."
}