Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 862618,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/862618/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 287,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kipipiri, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Amos Kimunya",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 174,
        "legal_name": "Amos Muhinga Kimunya",
        "slug": "amos-kimunya"
    },
    "content": "Clause 14 has quite a number of exemptions coming from the old days. It exempts public officers. We are saying what they should do but, when we come to Clause 14, we exempt them from all manner of things. I wish Hon. Millie Odhiambo would help us here to make sure that the exemptions given to public officers who end up contracting is not used to get out of their obligations under the law, particularly Clause 14(c) that states: “in his personal capacity, be liable in civil or criminal proceedings in respect of any act or omissions done in good faith in the performance of his duties under the Act.” I am looking at a young officer who has just been recruited in the county. You know the way they are being recruited. He then ends up sub-contracting huge things and says he did it in good faith to the best of his knowledge – which knowledge is not there. The county could be losing lots of money. So, we need to tighten some of these things to define what good faith is. How do we measure this good faith so that we can exempt an officer who contracts and forces the Government to enter into multi-billion contracts? Those are some of the things that we would like to see coming. In terms of Clause 14(2), I see some drafting issue that needs to be clarified. It is talking about a procurement entity indemnifying an employee when actually it meant an employee who hires legal services shall be indemnified. The hiring of legal services is coming almost as a proviso rather than as the main reason why the person is being indemnified, provided that he succeeds in the case. So, it might require redrafting to get the exact intention of this Bill. The other items I would like to see sorted out either by the legal team of Parliament or the Committee are Clauses 12(1) and (2). The difference basically is that one is a contract and the other one is a bid contract. When you look at the definitions within Clause 2, a bid contract is not defined. So, we are bringing it into the main Act as 12(2) and saying the following terms are deemed to be expressly set out in every bid contract, but within Clause 2 there is no definition of a bid contract. We would save a lot of space and contradiction by just lifting the bid and including it within the definition of Government contract that it includes bids and then define what bids are so that we do not have 12(1) and 12(2). One is talking of a contract, the other one is talking of a bid but the provisions are all the same in terms of the declarations that a contractor requires in terms of their standing. We could delete 12(2) and merge it with 12(1) and have a better definition of a bid contract because in 12(1), we are talking of a contract which includes bids. That could be redefined to further sort out the inconsistencies in the draft. Since it has taken years to do it, we must as well do it right."
}