Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 914881,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/914881/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 116,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Alego-Usonga, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Samuel Atandi",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13290,
        "legal_name": "Samuel Onunga Atandi",
        "slug": "samuel-onunga-atandi"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to contribute to this Bill. This is a very good Bill. Products that require guarantors were introduced by financial institutions because of the realisation that some people have very good business ideas, but do not have capacity to implement them. So, banks decided to introduce guarantors to help such people acquire resources to implement their ideas. So, the applicant is not the person who is being appraised. The person to be appraised is the guarantor because the applicant is known not to have capacity to get the resources. Basically, the idea was very good because it was intended to help people have capacity to start businesses. That is the reason the solidity of the guarantor was very significant and banks went for the guarantors when there was default on the loan. That situation may not obtain now and that is the reason I support the amendment Bill. As somebody who worked in the financial sector, the idea of having people guaranteeing others to get resources to start businesses is something which we need to support. Most of us are aware that you could have a relative who does not have money to begin a business and even if they were to begin the business with the resources you have given them, and in case they default and financial institutions come for their assets, the business collapses and the person goes to zero. To some extent, if the law is repealed the way we want to do it, we may discourage people from supporting others to start up business. That is something we may need to check. Today, banks have sophisticated products that may not even require people to guarantee each other. We have unsecured facilities that were not there before. There are cases of teachers, for instance, in my village who cannot sleep in their houses because they guaranteed others. That is a realistic example of how guaranteeing has led to suffering. Some people who are guaranteed disappear and lenders go to the guarantors to attach their assets. So, guaranteeing has both positive and negative aspects. I want Parliament to check whether amending the law is going to 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."
}