Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 901848,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/901848/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 88,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The requirements of Article 75 of the Constitution on a State officer highlight the primacy that the Constitution attributes to the non-advancement of private or personal interest while holding a public office. Hon. Members, as ably noted by the Leader of the Majority Party, Article 122(3) of the Constitution precludes a Member of Parliament from voting on a matter in which the Member has a pecuniary interest. This express prohibition is qualified by Article 116 of the Constitution in two ways. First, Article 116(3) allows Members of Parliament to enact a legislation which grants them a collective pecuniary benefit, but defers the coming into force of such a legislation until the term of the Members comes to an end. On its part, Article 116(4) allows Members to enact a legislation which grants them a general pecuniary benefit that may accrue to them as members of the public. Hon. Members, an example is like Members voting to have a road constructed in a particular area. Hon. Members, taking a leaf from the example provided in the Constitution under Article 116(3) and (4), one will note that having a personal or private interest in a particular matter is not, in itself, prohibited. Indeed, as mentioned by Hon. Millie Odhiambo, her interest in matters relating to the welfare of children having previously worked with a child welfare organisation, ranks equal with the personal interest of Members of this House who are also parents. On face value, it may, therefore, be argued that one needs to have a personal interest in a matter for it to be properly prosecuted. However, what is prohibited is the failure to declare interest and the consequent influence of the declared or undeclared interest on debate and decisions of the House or its committees. As you are aware, this House enacted the Leadership and Integrity Act, 2012 and the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, 2017 to implement Chapter Six and Article 117 of the Constitution. Section 12 of the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003, which was enacted before the promulgation of the new Constitution provides guidance as to what constitutes a conflict of interest and the various obligations imposed on public officers generally. It says: “12. (1) A public officer shall use his best efforts to avoid being in a position in which his personal interests conflict with his official duties. (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), a public officer shall not hold shares or have any other interest in a corporation, partnership of other body, directly or through another person, if holding those shares or having that interest would result in the public officer’s personal interests conflicting with his official duties. (3) A public officer whose personal interests’ conflict with his official duties shall- (a) declare the personal interests to his superior or other appropriate body and comply with any directions to avoid the conflict; and (b) refrain from participating in any deliberations with respect to the matter.” Part (6) states: “(6) In this section, “personal interest” includes the interest of a spouse, relative or business associate.” Quite similarly, Hon. Members, Section 16 of the Leadership and Integrity Act, 2012, provides particular guidance as to what circumstances constitute a conflict of interest and the various obligations that the House saw fit to impose upon its Members and other State officers. It states: 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."
}