George Peter Opondo Kaluma

All parliamentary appearances

Entries 5431 to 5440 of 6087.

• 7 Oct 2015 in National Assembly: Thank you, Hon. Speaker. Clause 8(2) says that a magistrate can only intervene on matters under Article 25 on issues of torture. Sub-clause 3 talks of matters to deal with fair administrative action, access to justice and fair hearing. We are being told that a magistrate cannot deal with all these. When you take this jurisdiction, then you are doing nothing giving this provision because it does not actualise in a very deep way the provisions of Article 23. I wanted to ask Members of the Committee, together with people of good sense of justice before our court system, that ... view
• 1 Oct 2015 in National Assembly: Hon. Speaker, I stand before you and Hon. Members of the august House this afternoon under Standing Order No.139 as read together with Standing Order No.1 to request that the Motion appearing as Order No.10 be deferred to a future date. view
• 1 Oct 2015 in National Assembly: This is a very important Motion. It requires some numbers in terms of constitutional provisions. By checking through the House, I see there is a limitation in that regard. view
• 26 Aug 2015 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, it will do a lot of justice to us if the Mover tells us more about the term being deleted, so that we can get the real substance of the proposed amendment. view
• 26 Aug 2015 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Hon. Neto is spot on in terms of what the proposed amendment seeks to do. It is the explanation by the Chair of the Committee which is confusing. What Clause 11 and 13 amendments speak to is that the jurisdiction of the magistrates in this matter is being removed, but the one for the judge is being left. What the Chair is saying is the reverse. He wants to take this thing to the magistrate. We need clarity from him because if it is as per the Order Paper, we will support. view
• 26 Aug 2015 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, It appears Hon. Neto is speaking my mind before I do. Let me speak his mind. This is the power being given to a court to issue warrants for forcible entry into a premise and for destruction of prohibited objects in the premises. It is an abrogation of the right to property and right to privacy. This is the reason I initially indicated that if we are removing the magistrates and taking these powers to the High Court judge because it is a violation of human rights, well and good. If for any reason we will ... view
• 26 Aug 2015 in National Assembly: Withdrawing the amendment would still leave us with judge or magistrate, the level of whom is not defined. So, this is something which the Committee Chair can have liberty because judges may be few and you have an urgent thing in some location in the country to deal with. If we are going to specify the magistrate as Senior Principal Magistrate and above, I think it is something that can be moved if you commit. view
• 26 Aug 2015 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, I find myself in the unfortunate situation of speaking after Hon. Moi. But this provision in totality has some very dangerous provisions. The idea that the Cabinet Secretary has to authorize a fact-finding mission when the membership and who are engaged in this fact-finding mission are not being defined, could be dangerous in my view. I do not know whether this would include, for instance, the Departmental Committee on Defence and Foreign Relations that is seeking to deal with any other matter. If it were to be so, I would be worried that a Cabinet Secretary ... view
• 26 Aug 2015 in National Assembly: Even the idea that you cannot challenge an action of the Executive before a court of law is unimaginable. I do not know whether I will be requesting the Chair to withdraw the deletion but to think of doing something about this provision in the Bill itself. view
• 26 Aug 2015 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, the Chair of the Committee appears to believe that having a definition of the usage of a term or a phrase within a section is illegal in terms of drafting. It is not so. The definition is being given here for authorized fact-finding mission in the manner it is used in Clause 17. It is possible and let me persuade the Chair of the Departmental Committee on Defence and Foreign Affairs that if you have a phrase that is appearing only in a section and it is not used severally, it can be defined only in ... view