HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 937825,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/937825/?format=api",
"text_counter": 373,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. (Eng.) Hargura",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 827,
"legal_name": "Godana Hargura",
"slug": "godana-hargura"
},
"content": "them hostile amongst themselves. It is also affordable, because it does not have unnecessary costs of filing a case, and maybe hiring a lawyer. Also, the individual and the community are involved in sorting out that dispute. Right now where we come from, you will find that because of the absence of normal judicial mechanisms, we only use the traditional ways. We have been running on that. Disputes arise because where there are people, there must be disputes. Therefore, those kind of mechanisms help solve these disputes and communities move together. This also helps to boost cohesion, which is also part of the objectives of the Bill. The Bill aims at fostering peace and cohesion within the communities. That itself creates a positive way of dispute resolution. The Bill also has limitations. It does not apply to all cases, as shown in Clause 4. This approach is also voluntary and, in the process, the person seeking out the arbitration will have right to information. There will be confidentiality and impartiality in terms of determination, which we expect from the mediators and the traditional dispute resolution elders. Then that way, we have a better alternative way of sorting out our disputes and communities will be able to co-exist. As we move on, even the issues of congesting our courts will not be there. As it has been clearly stated by my colleagues, who contributed earlier, our prisons and remands are full of people, whose cases would have been sorted out, as much as they would be criminal cases. But still, once they come before the traditional mechanisms or through these conciliation or mediation, then we can sort some cases out, thus decongesting our courts. That is why the Constitution envisaged that when a case comes before the court, let people consider these other means of settling dispute, instead of just going into the regular system, where you have to come with your lawyers. The other day, we had a civil case that concerns land. The judge referred that case back to the county assembly to mediate between the two parties. If we had a structure like this, maybe it would have been better. Maybe the people to whom it was referred to did not have the qualifications to do that mediation. However, if we have a law which registers the mediators or the conciliators, then it would have added value to that particular process. It required the county assembly Speaker to look for a qualified and registered mediator to start the process. However, if a law like this was in place, may be the court would have directly referred it to that mediator. This is the best way to go, because justice is always good if it is served speedily and impartially, unlike what Kenyans are going through when we have a lot of cases in court. This is because they have to go to civil courts, and there is no alternative mechanisms to solve their disputes. I support the Bill, and I hope that it will go a long way in making sure that Kenyans access justice and resolve their issues amicably. At the end of the day, it will assist in bolstering cohesion, because everybody will be satisfied. The Bill says that if you are not satisfied, you still have the option of going to court. It will be the fast way. If disputes occur in a community, they could best be handled by people of that community. That is why it is always good that if a dispute occurs, it can be best handled by people in that community. That is why some of us have been telling the police that whenever they"
}