Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 964937,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/964937/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 273,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Funyula, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Wilberforce Oundo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13331,
        "legal_name": "Wilberforce Ojiambo Oundo",
        "slug": "wilberforce-ojiambo-oundo-2"
    },
    "content": "consultations with the NLC. This raises the question: Does a mere invitation to attend a stakeholder meeting constitute consultation? We must also appreciate that that was probably the time we did not have a substantive NLC. That could have resulted in failure to demonstrate adequate consultation. Secondly, the issue of land transactions is important to Kenyans that it was necessary that there be a regulatory impact assessment report. The Ministry did not provide this. Thirdly, knowing the importance of land, it would have even been more prudent for them to go further and prepare some kind of social impact assessment report to ascertain to what extent the Regulations would affect Kenyans generally, and specifically, users of the land information management system. The Ministry did not demonstrate that they did the same. More fundamentally was the issue of lack of public consultation. Our Constitution is explicitly clear that for any legislation, be it subsidiary legislation or a directive, that has an impact of legal force, there must be public consultation. The mere fact that the Ministry purported or indicated without providing any proof that they hosted some stakeholders is not enough. They could have called their friends in a room and taken a cup of tea. That could not constitute public consultation. The mere fact that they said they put an advert in the newspaper, which they could not provide, could not have been adequate public participation. Issues of land are so central. The Ministry should have gone out of its way to make sure that they have adequately consulted the public and that public input has been incorporated in the Regulations. Finally, reading through the Regulations as they were, they seemed to confer excessive powers to the Chief Land Registrar. That office was becoming a law unto itself. This being a public document or a public process, there should not have been such restriction as to the Chief Land Registrar to decide who becomes a user to restrict access to the information. Therefore, as a Committee - and we are proud to have done so - we had a serious discussion with the Ministry. We pointed out to them the shortcomings of the Regulations and they agreed with us that they will go back to the drawing board and come up with regulations that truly reflect the will of the people and comply with the laws and the Constitution being the supreme law. With those few remarks, I beg to second the Motion."
}