Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 935844,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/935844/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 609,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Nominated, ANC",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Godfrey Osotsi",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13172,
        "legal_name": "Godfrey Osotsi",
        "slug": "godfrey-osotsi"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this Bill. The key objective of the amendments to the Competition Act is to deal with some ambiguities in the parent Act. For instance, to define what buyer power is in relation to abuse of dominance. But there is a lot of inconsistency in this amendment Bill. You are well aware that, recently, we had the Speaker’s Round Table with Kenya Private Sector Alliance (KEPSA) in Mombasa. One thing which came out of this meeting was the concern by the private sector that we need to help them by harmonising the provisions of the Competition Act with the various laws dealing with the regulatory bodies. This is because there are a lot of inconsistences around there. I want to agree with this because even in the telecommunications sector, it is regulated by CAK under the Kenya Information and Communications Act (KICA). We have many inconsistencies as to what CAK and Communication Authority of Kenya should do. For, example, at the moment, we have a big dilemma on the issue of determination of dominance in the telecommunication sector on who is supposed to handle it. Is it the Communication Authority of Kenya or CAK? So, we have a lot of inconsistences. So, my reading of this Bill is that it will not solve the problems that we have. In fact, it is going to introduce more inconsistencies to the existing laws and to the operations of various industry regulators. Of concern is that this Bill is even inconsistent with the Law of Contract Act and even the Companies Act, especially Clause 28 (8), where it attempts to define how parties should do their contracts. It even attempts to define the terms to be included in contracts. This is against the freedom of contracting, which is protected by law. So, as much as it is trying to address the issue of abuse of buyer power, it is introducing inconsistencies that will not help in addressing the real problem. The other issue is increased investigative powers that have been given to the Competition Authority. Whereas some colleagues have said that in other jurisdictions, Competition Authorities are given these powers, I disagree. Look at a sector like telecommunication where the Communications Authority is given similar powers to handle all issues around telecommunication. Now, you want to introduce another person to also do the same. We are going to introduce so many inconsistencies and I agree with those who are saying we are going to create a monster. There is also the provision on reporting and prudential requirements being mandatory. In my view, this is unnecessary. This is because some organisations, depending on the sector they are in, submit returns to the relevant regulators in that sector. So, why do you want to ask them again to submit returns to the Competition Authority? I think this will be punitive and it will introduce more inconsistencies in the sector. It is going to deal with issues of restrictions even on professional associations to prevent, distort and lessen competition. The reason we have 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."
}