Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 674840,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/674840/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 186,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Dr.) Nyikal",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 434,
        "legal_name": "James Nyikal",
        "slug": "james-nyikal"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this Bill. This Bill is extremely important as it brings into effect Article 196(3) of the Constitution. I am surprised that this Bill has come so late in the day. It means that county assemblies have actually been operating without any protection whatsoever. It means that a policeman could have walked in during their proceedings and arrested any of them and nothing would have been wrong because there was no law. Therefore, this Bill should have been amongst the laws to be passed within the first year. We should not even have opened the county assemblies without this law in place. It was relegated in place of other Bills which were to be done within five years. That was an oversight at the time of Constitution-making. I support this Bill because of its clarity. First, it clearly defines the “precincts of Parliament” and has taken into consideration all the areas within Parliament where Members can be, including accommodation. I was just wondering what type of accommodation there is in Parliament, but it refers to offices. It has even gone ahead to include, as should be expected, other areas outside the physical precincts of Parliament where meetings can be held, so that wherever a meeting is held, that then becomes the precincts of Parliament. The powers and privileges apply there as well. Part III clearly highlights the areas and the privileges we are talking about. Clause 8 of the Bill states that no civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted in any court or tribunal for what members have said within the precincts of Parliament. Clause 9 states that a member who is found to have contravened Article 193(2) of the Constitution, the decision shall not have effect for the purposes of Article 194(1)(g) of the Constitution on removal. I do not see why we needed to bring that one in, but it is still a good protection. Clause 10 is something we should look at because it states that no proceedings or decisions of a county assembly or the Committee of Power and Privileges acting in accordance with this Act shall be questioned in any court. We can include proceedings, but including decisions will probably take the matter too far. Also, I do not know why it is being confined to one Committee. This should be extended to all Committees of the county assemblies. Those are the areas that we will really have to look at. Clause 12(2) states that no civil suits shall be commenced against the Speaker or the Leader of the Majority Party, Leader of the Minority Party, chairperson of a committee for any act done or ordered by them in the discharge of the functions of their office. There should be limitations to that. We should add the phrase “within the limitations of the Constitution and other laws”. If we make it that broad, then we can easily get into problems. Those powers and protections will enable MCAs to operate freely and express themselves and do all they need to do in the course of their duties. I also support this Bill when it comes to Clause 17 because it addresses what we have gone through in the case of Hon. Opiyo Wandayi where Standing Order No.111 did not give a range of penalties. I like this because it gives us a whole range of what can be done depending on how serious the misdemeanour is decided to be. That would have taken us a long way. However, on the same, Clause 17(3)(h) is on vacation of seat pursuant to Articles 75(2) (b) and 194(1)(c) of the Constitution. Article 75 relates to actions that are demeaning to the office. That may be useful because people can perform certain actions even outside that are really demeaning to their office, but would that lead them to vacate their office. In other arms of Government, this is already in place. It is something good, but we need to qualify it. It can also be subject to abuse. It also recommends fines touching on members’ salaries. This penalty should just be left as fines. I do not see why we should relate fines to the members’ salary. We should remove that. If you are fined, you pay the fine. Somebody is thinking of attaching people’s salaries to things 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."
}