HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 976841,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/976841/?format=api",
"text_counter": 275,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Kang’ata",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 1826,
"legal_name": "Irungu Kang'ata",
"slug": "irungu-kangata"
},
"content": "Thank you, Madam Temporary Speaker. I rise to support this Bill. I will start by giving some responses to the Seconder of this Bill. He made some contributions which I would like to correct from where I sit. Number one, he suggested that the Mover should amend the Bill and provide for the concept of retrospectivity on the account that if you do not have such kind of a Clause, those who corrupted prior to 2020, will not be punished. Madam Temporary Speaker, I beg to differ. I am not so sure that such kind of a Clause can stand the test of constitutionality. Article 50 and Article 49 have Clauses which seem to disallow retrospectivity of criminal law. Therefore, I am not so sure whether the Mover can be able to amend and provide for that. I have also heard his proposal that the Mover of this Bill should seek to make the Chief Magistrate Court or the Magistrates’ Court as the court of first instance. There have been several references to the High Court. I am not so sure that that will be the best course of action, the reason being that the High Court, pursuant to Article 165 of the Constitution has the power to supervise other courts; the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. In a way, to the best of my knowledge, the Mover of this Bill wanted to ensure that the High Court retains some supervisory roles. To that extent, the High Court is the correct court to be given the powers that have been proposed by this Bill. Therefore, generally, for me, this is a good Bill. The reason I am supporting this Bill is: One, the President, His Excellency Uhuru Kenyatta, has expressed his need to do a lifestyle audit. When he was in Mombasa in the year 2018 or 2019, he said that he intends to do a lifestyle audit in as far as civil servants and other public servants are concerned. The truth is, we do not have a legislative framework to support such kind of an endeavor. To that extent, therefore, my sister has done this country a great service by initiating something that ideally ought to have been brought to this House by the Ministry concerned or even the Attorney-General, to effectuate the intention of His Excellency President Uhuru Kenyatta. To that extent, this is positive. Madam Temporary Speaker, another reason I support this Bill is because when you look at comparative jurisdictions, you draw lessons from other countries. You will ascertain that, indeed, those other progressive countries have a similar framework. Therefore, if you want to fight corruption, you may need to establish this kind of law, to ensure we achieve our big fight against corruption. I also support this Bill because unlike several pieces of legislations that have the tendency to create bodies after bodies, this Bill does not propose to create any body. I have seen every Bill coming to this House or even the National Assembly proposing to come up with a certain agency or statutory body. This causes the Government to pay money to so many bodies which have overlapping responsibilities. This Bill is not proposing to create any statutory body. To me, that is a positive thing. It is light in terms of regulation and expenditure to the Government. In fact, there is no cost that the Government will incur if this Bill becomes law. Madam Temporary Speaker, I checked the proposed Clause 5 of the Bill, on the so called bodies involved in lifestyle audit. These are common bodies. I am happy that The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}