Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1000731,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1000731/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 1379,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13465,
        "legal_name": "Paul Otiende Amollo",
        "slug": "paul-otiende-amollo"
    },
    "content": "it is for the Executive not to overreach in respect of the Judiciary; as it is for the Judiciary not to overreach in respect of this House. The tendency by some judges to sometimes overreach and try to fetter the budget-making discretion of this House, or try to fetter the law-making discretion where it is not unconstitutional or try to tie the hands of Parliament when exercising its oversight role, is one to be condemned. I am glad we have come to that cycle when everyone now accepts that the budget-making role is for the National Assembly. However, there is more to be done. I thank the Committee for doing a number of things. One, for being innovative with public participation in this time of COVID-19. Two, for respecting what, for long, had not been realised: restating the requirement that the budgets of the Judiciary and Parliament must be considered independently and alongside the proposals of the National Treasury. But we need to go further. When we make the Budget and approve the Estimates, it means no one has the authority to spend money which is not approved by this House. A practice has emerged and has been in existence for the last seven years where, beyond the Estimates approved, the Executive goes ahead and spends money, only later to come assuming we will rubber stamp what was already spent, thereby abusing the small leeway left by Article 223 of the Constitution. Article 223 is very clear. It leaves a very small leeway through which money can be spent before approval, if it is absolutely necessary. It is not a routine occurrence. And we must sanction that practice where appropriate. The question of pending bills is also important. The Committee has addressed it and some Members have also spoken to it. Pending bills should be paid, but I think, sometimes, we might be in the danger of over-emphasizing this. As we urge payment of pending bills, let us urge the ascertainment of the legitimacy of those bills. We cannot say that a public officer must pay pending bills at the peril of going to jail, without adding that, that public officer must ascertain the legitimacy of that bill and confirm that it is due and owing. We are in a country that is full of corruption. There are many pending bills which are not due and payable. So, I urge that, as we urge the payment of pending bills, let us urge legitimacy. Lastly, I want an assurance on two quick things. One, the Leader of the Majority Party raised an issue here some time back—and I respect all members of the Committee. He alleged - and he did not withdraw - that members of the Committees sometimes pick projects for themselves. I want an assurance from the Mover of the Motion that, that is not the case here. I also want an assurance that, as we allocate money to mitigate the effects of floods, let us remember that there are also other people who have been affected by the rising waters of Lake Victoria, Lake Naivasha and other lakes. I urge that there be a liberal interpretation of the effects of floods so that some of our people, like in Rarieda, can be covered. With that, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, I support."
}