Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 666541,
    "url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/666541/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 278,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Dr.) Nyongesa",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 132,
        "legal_name": "Paul Nyongesa Otuoma",
        "slug": "paul-otuoma"
    },
    "content": "Parliament picks up this matter to understand how this came about. A parastatal incurred pending bills on money that had not been voted for in its development plan. If what we are looking at here today would be part of the development Budget either through the relevant Ministry on behalf of the LBDA, then, it would be making sense. Saying that this is a stand-alone item to pay off pending bills, I find it a bit curious and quite unusual. Although the mall has already been built, we have heard about its economic viability here, but how it was structured and why we are calling this a pending bill instead of putting it as a development Budget for the parastatal, I do not understand. Many times, the reason the Government creates parastatals is to allow them to make profits and plough back money into public coffers. In this case, from the debate that is going on here, it is being looked at as a consumer item. It is not an investment. The Chair of PIC should have brought up the issue that this is money that we need to invest in this parastatal as development money so that the parastatal can generate more A-I-A for the Government. We have seen in the Budget that the collection in A-I-A is limited. It is not growing. In this case, it is a one off item for something that has been expended. I will not support this amendment unless it is very clear."
}