Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 694476,
    "url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/694476/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 607,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "The Auditor-General",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "(Dr.) Edward Ouko): Hon. Senators, thank you very much for these very insightful questions, some of them trying to turn the Auditor-General to be a legal analyst also. Regarding the issue of the interpretation of Article 226 and the fact that my reports are still pending, the work and responsibility must continue. My take on that is that the Constitution requires expenditures to go ahead. Expenditures have been approved by Parliament and they are being controlled by the Controller of Budget and it has to continue. That is my comment. Concerning the use of the word “prudence” we did not use it in more legal terms but we used it in the context of trying to see value for money issues. That is how we analyse prudence in the context of value for money and maybe the context of Article 229(6) which the other counsel referred to about effectiveness. Maybe you will excuse me for use of the word “prudence”. We used it to show that had the money been delivered all together, in other words the money which was to be spent five years, they could have actually built a house or whatever. I think it was because of lack of a better word but that is our understanding of the word “prudence” there. Therefore, it behooves the question. Do I go there and say because there was no value for money, somebody else must refund it? It depends on the circumstances because there are some cases a person takes a particular decision which we can single out and tell them that they caused the county to lose so much. In that case, we will be very clear and say; Mr. X, you take the responsibility. When it is institutional where you have various ministries, CECs and all that taking decision jointly, you cannot put that responsibility of say Kshs48 million on one person but on the institution. That is why we go asking about the effectiveness and value for money issues. In a way, that also responds to the Karson Photo House issue. When we raise the issues, first of all, we determine the most directly responsible person at a particular level. On the overall, management letters are directed to the people who could be called accounting officers because they are the management overseers in terms of the execution or expenditure of funds. We have the CEC for Finance but there are also other CECs who may be involved and we direct those issues directly to them. However, when we look at the final management or compendium of all issues, the primary address goes to the CEC."
}