David Ouma Ochieng'

All parliamentary appearances

Entries 1111 to 1120 of 2320.

• 10 Sep 2014 in National Assembly: Why and how? view
• 27 Aug 2014 in National Assembly: Hon. Chairlady, I want to support the amendment by the Chair. You realise that the current Clause 8 is quite skeletal and so, the reason we added meat was so that we put the rights of the victim positively. You identify the positive right that you are trying to protect and then you provide for it. Just to respond, the court cannot be relied on. The court has its mechanisms of knowing what the truth is and what the lie is, but you want to give the victim that protection. You do not want to give room for people speculating ... view
• 27 Aug 2014 in National Assembly: I support. view
• 27 Aug 2014 in National Assembly: Thank you very much, hon. Chairlady. I also want to support my Chair. In terms of good sense and order, I want to appeal to my Chair that the amendment he has proposed is very good. That is because it builds onto the constitutional right to a fair trial. view
• 27 Aug 2014 in National Assembly: We are proposing to introduce 9(a) before Clause 9. That is what we are proposing to do. Could we not have Clause 9 first before we have 9(a)? I hope hon. Chairlady you are following what I am talking about. We are introducing 9(a) before we do Clause 9. Could we not have Clause 9 and then 9(a)? view
• 27 Aug 2014 in National Assembly: The current Clause 9 talks about security of the victim. If we introduce 9(a), we can then call it the right of the victim at trial because the two are not related. Security of the victim and the right to victim at trial are two separate ideas. They are very important in their own separate rights. So, I would like to request my Chair and even the Mover of the Bill to consider having 9(a) after Clause 9 and probably rename the footnote as--- view
• 27 Aug 2014 in National Assembly: Thank you very much, hon. Chairlady. I want to oppose the amendment by hon. Kang’ata. But as I do so, I thought what we should be considering - and I have been discussing this with the Mover of the Bill – is whether the so-called statement should be given to a third party to prepare it or it should be the victim to prepare. However, in terms of representation, we must make it optional. I want to oppose both the issue of “shall” and the removal of the words “unless the court orders otherwise”. view
• 27 Aug 2014 in National Assembly: Hon. Chairlady, I want us to remember that in terms of protection of the victim, the court has a lot of say. The court, may, during the proceedings, have noted one or two The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor. view
• 27 Aug 2014 in National Assembly: things that make it necessary that we do not need that statement. I would like to oppose both (a) and (b) so that the section remains as it is now. view
• 27 Aug 2014 in National Assembly: Hon. Chairlady, I want to agree with my Chair, but the problem with this Bill is to do with coherence because if you look at the proposals being made by my Chair now, and what we have now at Clause 10(2), the current Clause 10(2) says that if a victim wishes to make a statement, a procedural agency shall refer the victim to an appropriate victims’ services agency. view