Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 937742,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/937742/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 290,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Kasanga",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13185,
        "legal_name": "Sylvia Mueni Kasanga",
        "slug": "sylvia-mueni-kasanga"
    },
    "content": "Whereas dispute resolution mechanisms are mostly party driven, the Bill, under Clause 5, will give some guiding principles. These are general guiding principles when it comes to alternative dispute resolution. First is the voluntary participation. You cannot be forced to go into a dispute resolving mechanism if you do not want to. There is right to information. You cannot be dragged through a process of which you do not have information. The other one is confidentiality. We pride ADR for being confidential. This is also being entrenched in the Bill and in determination of disputes in the shortest time practicable. This is the true essence of ADR. Impartiality of the mediator, conciliator or traditional dispute resolver and the importance of disclosure of any conflict of interest that might arise is very central and a key pillar to ADR. There is also the requirement for a conciliator, mediator or a traditional dispute resolver to facilitate disputes, which he or she is competent in to facilitate, as opposed to just anybody running along with the process. Of course, there is the ability of the parties to use one or more dispute resolution mechanisms in an attempt to resolve their disputes. The beauty of ADR is that you are not tied to one process. If you try conciliation and it does not work, you can try mediation. If it does not work, you can try a dispute resolver. There is nothing that stops you from trying any of the methods to solve your dispute in the best, fastest and cheapest way possible. Part II of the Bill provides for accreditation and registration of conciliators and mediators. Clause 10 is also pushing for code of conduct for conciliators and mediators. One of the issues that came out in the meeting that we had on Monday with the Chief Justice was their court annexed mediation and the need for a code of conduct for their mediators. The push for a code of conduct is part of what we are trying to do, so as to bring order to this profession of ADR. If we do not put measures as a country today, we will begin to lose our place in the global platform. I am passionate about code of ethics, standards and integrity. How can we play internationally or encourage disputes to be resolved on our land if we cannot guarantee integrity of our dispute resolvers? Part III of the Bill provides for conciliation and mediation. It sets out how persons can use the processes through appointment, the role of the parties, the role of conciliator or mediator, the commencement and the entire process, attendance and representation. The Bill has gone ahead to give some structure to the process itself. This is an area where some of the stakeholders have felt that we should not put too much formality to the process. We shall be looking forward to debate for us to find the best way possible, so as to lay a framework that can be used by any person. Clauses 11 and 12 provide that parties in the dispute can use mediation and conciliation voluntarily as may be directed by the courts. We have added a rider there and the courts are free to send parties to try the disputes through other means before going to court. Confidentiality is in the heart of conciliation and mediation, and Clause 22 of the Bill provides for that. The Bill also provides that there may be necessity to disclose a matter that is in conciliation or mediation. Clause 22(5) states that:-"
}