Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 862589,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/862589/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 258,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Suba North, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Ms.) Odhiambo-Mabona",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 376,
        "legal_name": "Millie Grace Akoth Odhiambo Mabona",
        "slug": "millie-odhiambo-mabona"
    },
    "content": "Clause 9 gives the sole responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney-General when the services are of a legal nature. I thought I had heard that the Attorney General would be signing contracts on behalf of Government agencies. But it has been clarified that it is only in relation to legal services. For the other ones, the Attorney General will not sign for them. Clause 12 provides: “(1) The following terms are deemed to be expressly set out in every contract that provides for the payment of any money by the Government – (a) the contractor declares and warrants that the contractor has not, directly or indirectly, paid or agreed to pay, and shall not, directly or indirectly, pay a facilitation or contingency fee to any individual for the solicitation, negotiation or obtaining of the contract contrary to the provisions of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003 or any other applicable anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws.” This is a very good provision yet everybody in this country knows that it is almost near impossible to get any contract by the Government, whether county or national, unless you bribe. This is one of the cosmetic pieces that we are putting into the Bill. It is excellent but very cursory. It does not mean anything because people will bribe. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission is not serious. People bribe and get contracts. Young people who want Government contracts face challenges because they do not have money to bribe. It is almost as if we have made bribery official. I am happy that Hon. Didmus Barasa has told me that I should bring my amendments as usual so that he can support them. I have told him that one of the amendments I will table is that the contract will be deemed null and void where there is evidence of bribery. It should also be deemed null and void where there is evidence of sexual harassment. Men will be asked to pay money and women will be asked to pay with their bodies. If there is any proof that a woman has been forced to submit to sexual favours in return and is, therefore, contrary to the Counter- Trafficking in Persons Act and the Sexual Offences Act, that in itself should negate a Government contract. Even though we have made possible the 30 per cent provision for women, what ends up happening is that a man will front a woman - maybe his wife - but in the end, he is the one doing the contract because when women go to get those contracts, they find layer upon layer of sexual harassment. From the sweeper who shows you where the office is to the main person who gives you the contract, they all want a relationship with you. That is not very good for women. A good provision is Clause 12(1)(c) that talks about the fact that the contractor can also give public disclosure according to the Access to Information Act. I say this especially in relation to several funds, whether it is the National Government Constituencies Development Fund (NG- CDF), the National Government Affirmative Action Fund or other funds that are sometimes shrouded in a lot of mystery. You find a contract that is worth Kshs1 million being done for Kshs12 million. There are toilets that should be worth Kshs1 million or Kshs600,000 being done at Kshs8 million. Following the Access to Information Act - which is also referred to here - it is a good provision. I am also very happy about Clause 14 (1) (c) that provides that a public officer should not be liable for actions done in good faith. It does not include where that officer is negligent. Even though the officer will not be held personally liable, if it is shown that that officer was negligent, they can be held personally liable for making the counties or the national Government lose millions of monies that would otherwise be used to treat cancer, help poor women and children who are struggling with school fees. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. Acertified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}