Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 936916,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/936916/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 244,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Gilgil, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Ms.) Martha Wangari",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13123,
        "legal_name": "Martha Wangari",
        "slug": "martha-wangari"
    },
    "content": "evidence, we also required that, the regulation making authorities provide the necessary back up documentation to show they have taken adequate time to go round the country, so that all users and consumers of these regulations are apprised. The Committee has been very open to regulation making authorities in what we call pre- publication scrutiny. This is something that I will say to other authorities that are watching these proceedings. Instead of coming with regulations that we cannot amend because we are not mandated to do that, they engage the Committee beforehand to iron out issues in order to have a smooth sailing regulation making process given by the Statutory Instruments Act. In addition to what Hon. G.G. Murugara has said while moving, I will only talk about issues that lead us to think that these regulations are fatally defective and they need to be relooked. I would take this chance to look at Regulation 25. It has been a contentious issue in terms of arming security guards. I know there is division of opinion on it. More importantly, even if we go that way, we have to align the process with the parent Act. That has not been done. The drafting is also fatally defective. If you look at Regulation 27, the heading on Part VII provides for “levy” while the marginal notes provide for a Fund. These are two different things. They will be confusing. The timeline for implementation had been as February, 2020. I know many security practitioners and consumers had said that timeline is too short. We are already in November. The unfortunate bit is that we cannot amend that timeline unless we annul these statutory instruments to be published again so that they are given enough time to comply, to properly register their companies into an organisation, and to acquire proper instruments. That can only be done if these regulations are republished. If you look at the Committee’s Report, you will be able to see that the regulation making body provides for power to record and temporarily hold identification documents. That is in contravention to what has been provided for under the parent Act, the Private Security Act, Section 48(4). The other issue is the power of arrest. I know it has been talked about. You know we live in a very enthusiastic country where people just arrest you for no specific reason and they do not say how long it takes after the arrest to take you to the police or to a police station. It will mean a security guard can easily arrest you on a Friday, hold you wherever they take you until Monday. That will be prone to abuse. That issue is very critical. That is why we are saying Regulation 37 must be very clear that it is in tandem with what has been provided for on arrest under Section 46(4) of the parent Act. We have very many reasons why we felt that these regulations are fatally defective. I pray that this House sees the sense that we are talking of human life and abuse of power so that we are able to annul these regulations in entirety. If we do so, we will be able to align it to the necessary statutes and the Constitution and be able to do the right thing as we are supposed to do in this House. With those remarks, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, I beg to second."
}