GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/950322/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 950322,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/950322/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 213,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13465,
        "legal_name": "Paul Otiende Amollo",
        "slug": "paul-otiende-amollo"
    },
    "content": "Thirdly, it must be noted that there is also space for what we call plea bargaining. That space derives directly from the Constitution in Article 159(2)(c), which allows alternative dispute resolution methods. This is an avenue that has been used, not just in this country, but in many others. Sometimes, when you find yourself in the situation we are in where corruption is so severe and a lot of money is out there, you come to a reasonable term and say that if someone has stolen Kshs100 million, he should bring Kshs95 million and be allowed to keep Kshs5 million only. That has been done in other countries. It can be done in this country. With this kind of prescription, you take away that avenue of plea bargaining. Plea bargaining is sometimes necessary. It is one we cannot purport to take away as this Bill wants to do. Beyond that, we need to caution ourselves as Members of Parliament. When amending this part, we must look at the parent Act. What does it deal with? It is not just Article 48. The parent Act starts from Section 32 to Section 47. We must remember that when you look at Section 42 of the parent Act, conflict of interest is punishable under this section. We must ask ourselves if we want to prescribe a minimum sentence of Kshs1 million and 10 years for conflict of interest. How many of us have suffered that conflict of interest? How many of us have dealt with our NG-CDF in situations of conflict of interest? Even when we vote in this House and Members says that we will vote for so-and-so because he or she is a former MP, is that not conflict of interest? If you were to look carefully, you might find that many of us in this House would be guilty under Section 42 for conflict of interest. We must remember that this is the sentence that we will be recommending for ourselves, including in recent discussions we have had in this House, even yesterday. We must also caution ourselves in terms of how we want to deal with corruption. Is the problem of corruption one of law or social ills? Our problem is that we have made peace with corruption as a country. We tolerate corruption. It is a social ill and yet, we think that we can solve it by law. Every time issues of corruption are brought, even issues of integrity, we sweep them under the carpet. We are guilty of that even in this House. When reports are tabled and they have questions of integrity, we say that we do not have to speak to them. When it comes to the law of corruption, we say that there is so much corruption and hence the law. This is not a question of the law. This is a question of our own heart, approach and our tolerance of corruption. As long as we tolerate corruption, we can change this sentence to 100 years, but it will continue. We must focus on how to address our tolerance of corruption and how to enforce the law as it is. Right now, the law prescribes a sentence of up to 10 years. How many people have been convicted and even sentenced to five, six and nine or 10 years before we make 10 years mandatory? You will count so many people who have been called to record statements. Some have been presented in court but those who are convicted are very few. Our issue is enforcement. There are many countries that do not even have specialised legislation on corruption. Their tolerance of corruption is zero per cent. The issue is not the law."
}