Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 697537,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/697537/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 242,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Waiganjo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2644,
        "legal_name": "John Muriithi Waiganjo",
        "slug": "john-muriithi-waiganjo"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. I want to thank the Members who have made very insightful contributions to this Amendment Bill. Most of the debate has revolved around how we can harness and make the Witness Protection Bill much better. The amendments proposed seem to have covered most of the areas. Clause 22 on giving the Attorney-General powers to delegate has been deleted. The AG does not have blanket powers to delegate. Clause 23 seeks to amend Section 36 of the parent Act by creating a new proviso that provides that the AG may make regulations for or with respect to any matter which by this Act is required or permitted to be prescribed or which is necessary or expedient for the carrying out or giving effect to this Act. What we are saying is that even as this Act is amended, some regulations need to be created that will not only operationalise it but depending on what is in the mother statute, the regulations that we make must be very expansive so that the carrying out or the operationalisation of this Bill must be grounded on very firm statutory provisions. Therefore, the new Section 36(2) has brought in the Chief Justice (CJ) because most of these matters are heard in court. The Chief Justice is not only the president of the Supreme Court but he is also the head of the Judiciary. The Registrar of the Judiciary has also been looped in to sit in the board. In this Bill, the Chief Justice is also required to make practised rules so that even in the proceedings of these matters in court, he will from time to time make rules but in consultation with the AG. This is important because as the law is applied, jurisprudence is created. When you create jurisprudence, it follows necessarily that you have to also make amendments to the law, create case law or create practice rules to harness and to bring a good symbiotic working or application of the law. This is a law that will not only amend certain provisions but make sure that the practice within our courts is well taken care of. The application of this law is the key to our criminal justice system. It is the key to the provisions that will make sure that the mandate of the bill of rights in Chapter 4 of the Constitution is clearly carried out. In our courts today, most criminals are acquitted. This is not because they did not commit crimes but sometimes when judges are giving judgment, they normally say that their hands are tied because the evidence that was produced was not enough to convict the suspect. Criminal jurisprudence requires that a conviction must be done when evidence is beyond an iota of doubt. The onus is on the victim. Most witnesses are also victims of crime. If you are a complainant or a rape victim, you will be the first witness. So, if you give evidence without protection and you do not know that there exists the Witness Protection Act, then you are more likely to lose. Secondly, the police officer might not be sufficiently abled in terms of capacity to bring out your evidence. On the other side, the accused person has a defence counsel who is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya. You will realise that evidence is abused. As a victim of 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."
}