Paul Otiende Amollo

All parliamentary appearances

Entries 71 to 80 of 660.

• 5 Jan 2022 in National Assembly: Hon. Baya, I am now talking about the Constitution. Hon. Alice Wahome has spoken about this matter. view
• 5 Jan 2022 in National Assembly: Article 260 is very clear. The definition in Article 260 does not exclude the possibility of a definition of a coalition political party. So, the relevant Articles to consider are Articles 91 and 92. Nobody pointed out anything. view
• 5 Jan 2022 in National Assembly: Let us agree that there is no question of constitutionality. It is just a question of either carrying the amendment or not. Now that it has been carried, let it rest there. Thank you. view
• 29 Dec 2021 in National Assembly: Thank you, Hon. Deputy Speaker. The Chairman of the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has only tabled the Report. Therefore, any issue in terms of the Report cannot arise before debate starts. The point is that Hon. Duale stood under Standing Order No.83. Standing Order No.83 is not a substantive provision; it is an enabling provision. He needs to cite to you which Standing Order he is standing under so that he points out what is out of order. Standing Order No.83 is merely enabling and it actually only allows you to intervene when another Member is contributing. ... view
• 29 Dec 2021 in National Assembly: 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
• 2 Dec 2021 in National Assembly: Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. I see Hon. Kaluma eyeing me badly, but I will have him know that my right to raise a point of order was actually reserved by the Speaker on 29th September 2021, when this matter first came for the First Reading. I indicated to the substantive Speaker that I had certain constitutional concerns and the Speaker directed that, before commencement of the Second Reading, we would raise them. Therefore, I join Hon. Murugara in raising constitutional issues. I will not repeat the parts that Hon. Murugara has covered. Hon. Murugara has covered Clause 9(b) ... view
• 2 Dec 2021 in National Assembly: Also, in its conclusions in definitions in Clause 2, it talks of advocates, notaries and other independent legal practitioners within the professional firms. Again, it only restricts to advocates within professional firms. Generally, it is discriminatory of advocates and even within that category, it only refers to those within professional firms. It is interesting to note, that in the definition of the reporting agents, the advocates are now supposed to join other people like casino operators, estate agents, dealers in precious stones and such other businesses which ordinarily do not come with grace. view
• 2 Dec 2021 in National Assembly: I am reading the definition in Clause 2 (b), in conjunction with Schedule 1, of the substantive Act. If you read Schedule 1 of the substantive Act, it already enumerates the reporting agents. You will see that those reporting agents include casino operators, dealers in precious stones, estate agents and such other professions. Now, advocates are supposed to join that hallowed list. It is quite telling for a profession that is usually described as noble to be put in that category. The fundamental point is, other than being unconstitutional, is it unnecessary? If the intention is to give an authority ... view
• 2 Dec 2021 in National Assembly: Hon. Murugara did not mention Section 9 (b) and I want it included in that consideration because the issues are similar to those in Section 2. Clause 10 (c) (iii) (a) again when it comes to qualification for appointment, that is also to be considered. But of greater concern is Clause 130(a) - the limitation clause. This clause now limits the right to privacy in Article 31 of the Constitution. I will come back to that. As Clause 130 (a) talks of the limitations, Clause 130 (1) and (2) gives the limitation and a discretion to be searched, for seizure ... view
• 2 Dec 2021 in National Assembly: If you want to limit the right to privacy under Article 24 of the Constitution, you must do at least three things. First, you must limit it by law as they are seeking to do. Second, that limitation has to be reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. I have read the entire Bill; the purposes, the reports and it does not seek to demonstrate the justification in an open and democratic society. It might look easy and one might say that it concerns lawyers, but let it be remembered that the client-advocate confidentiality is not for the ... view