Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 850968,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/850968/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 299,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Mutula Kilonzo Jnr",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13156,
        "legal_name": "Mutula Kilonzo Jnr",
        "slug": "mutula-kilonzo-jnr"
    },
    "content": "attempts to introduce a land value index and to that extent, I am aware that the title to the Bill will change so that it conforms to the law. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, Sen. Murkomen mentioned Clause 13 and two other clauses where it appears that the proposers of this Bill are attempting to stifle the court in terms of the orders it can issue before land is acquired. I have seen a draft report, which states that the Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources will amend Clause 13 so that the power of the court in hearing appeals on matters of compensation cannot be restricted by legislation. This is because they have power under the Constitution. Similarly, under Clause 16, they attempt to amend the law. We must say clearly that it is not feasible that land can be acquired and possession taken by the Government before compensation is done. Compulsory acquisition is not the same thing as chasing people from their land. The word ‘compulsory’ means that the Government needs that land for public purposes and makes it compulsory that, that person will leave their land. To suggest that people should leave their land before they are compensated is not constitutional. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, under Part VIIIA, I have a problem with the Land Acquisition Tribunal. It is a good proposal to have the Tribunal to listen to appeals from the Commission, but the composition is wrong. The composition of one person appointed from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is ambiguous. This is because the JSC would either forward a magistrate or a judge, but not just any person. It does not seem to qualify who that person is, which is wrong. Even worse, the Attorney-General is the advisor of commissions and the Government. If we have a tribunal that will listen to appeals from the Commission, why would the Attorney-General have a representative in the tribunal? That is a contradiction. The Attorney-General cannot sit or have a representative in a matter where there would be a conflict of interest where the national Government is acquiring land. I hope that the Committee will amend this Clause so that the tribunal can be properly constituted. I have not seen the report on what the Committee intended to deal with this issue. However, it is a problem to have a tribunal that is composed of people who would ideally be jurists and professionals who are appointed by the Cabinet Secretary (CS). I was hoping that there would be something different; and that it would not be an Executive- laden body. The tribunal cannot be an extension of the Executive. By virtue of the work and the acquisition of land, it would be listening to appeals against acquisition by the national Government. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the tribunal should be amended such that they should subscribe to an oath and be allowed to make rules. Therefore, Clause 13 should be amended. The proposed Section 133C(8) says: “The Tribunal may, in matters relating to compulsory acquisition of land, hear and determine a complaint before it arising under Articles 23(2) and 47(3) of the Constitution, using the framework set out under the Fair Administrative Action Act or any other law.” This Tribunal cannot hear matters that are ideally subscribed to be heard by a court. Therefore, this article is wrongly placed in this proposal. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate"
}