Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 987722,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/987722/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 976,
    "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": " Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, before we debate this amendment, you need to give a ruling on a very fundamental issue. You realise that the issues proposed in these amendments touch on the provisions of Article 40 of the Constitution in so far as the Chairman has spoken to it. Article 40 of the Constitution is very clear. Article 40 (2) of the Constitution clearly states that Parliament shall not enact laws that arbitrarily dispossess anyone of his property. Property in terms of a house and anything is property within the meaning of Article 40. So, the first thing we need to be sure of is the constitutionality of this proposal before we even come to its merits. We need you to guide us to be sure that we have authority, under Article 40, to consider this amendment. Secondly, you also need to give a ruling. This is the Tax Laws (Amendments) Bill, and this is an amendment to the Law of Contract Act. What in this provision relates to taxation that would empower us to consider it? Thirdly, you should know that under Article 94 (5), only this House has authority to make law. So far, we have not made any law called “COVID-19” yet this proposed amendment just jumps into it without any definition to something called “COVID-19”. It does not even propose to define it in the preparatory part of the parent Act. Can we just come into an animal called “COVID-19” and purport to make provisions? It is important to know that any intervention in any pandemic of this nature usually needs to have a sunset clause, and not an open-ended law. This is open-ended. Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, before I give my views on this amendment, we need you to give direction. Fundamentally, this amendment is introducing a concept known to most lawyers as force majeure . It is a concept in common law, and is written in most contracts. If it is not written, then it is implied. But, on this occasion, the Committee wants us to legislate this consent of common law called force majeure even before we come to the wisdom of legislating it. Is it actually possible for us to import a concept usually applied by the courts under common law and just bring it to all contracts? To say that these provisions want to protect tenants is an easy way of escaping and making it populist without looking at the content. The content of this proposal is not just about tenants. It is affecting all contracts of any nature. Hon Temporary Deputy Chairman, you need to guide on this fast."
}