Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 785656,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/785656/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 135,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Gikaria",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2489,
        "legal_name": "David Gikaria",
        "slug": "david-gikaria"
    },
    "content": "The Bill talks about hefty fines and jail terms meant for serious crimes. But we are forgetting that continuity of stealing a few shillings from a common person ends up being more than a very huge one-off crime committed by a person. Let me call them short-time thieves who steal a few shillings. That crime also needs to be taken into consideration. Cybercrime is not a simple crime. It requires intelligent people in that field. If we leave ordinary police officers or authorized persons who have not been trained and have no capacity or knowledge at all for them to be able to address this kind of crime, then we will be missing the point. The intention here should be that, as we recruit, training should be part and parcel of this Bill to an extent that people who will be handling any cybercrime issue must have the capacity, knowledge and the professionalism of addressing those kinds of issues. So, training and recruitment of officers to handle those kinds of crimes is very crucial. It is true that if, indeed, somebody has benefitted from the proceeds of this crime, then as the Bill indicates… Whether it is the monies or property in whatever form, they should be confiscated so that they do not benefit the person. Whatever you receive from the proceeds of cybercrime should be taken away from you. Clause 20 talks about compensation. An ordinary person would have lost so much money. By fining or jailing the offender and/or recovery has been done, as it has been indicated, compensation to that person who might have lost from this kind of action is important. We need to re-emphasize the importance, as long as you can prove that it was not out of ignorance that those things happened. The last bit and very crucial is about the search warrants. Going to do a search without a court order, as indicated under Clause 24, is wrong. You need to get a court order first before you can do any search. At the same time, as indicated under Clause 25, there are instances where you will not require that search warrant. We have learnt so much from the two professionals. I hope as we get to the Committee of the whole House, we will see many changes to the Bill. I thank you, Hon. Speaker, I support."
}