Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1021951,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1021951/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 224,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Poghisio",
    "speaker_title": "The Senate Majority Leader",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 202,
        "legal_name": "Samuel Losuron Poghisio",
        "slug": "samuel-poghisio"
    },
    "content": "The provisions of Section 134 of the Public Finance Management (PFM) Act, however, contemplate that the option of votes on account would arise where the Division of Revenue Bill and the County Allocation of Revenue Bill have been passed and for whatever reason a county assembly has not passed an Appropriation Bill. The section does not contemplate the present situation where the County Allocation of Revenue Bill has not been passed and national revenue has not been divided among the counties. Perhaps then the provisions of the Public Finance Management Act (County Government) Regulations would provide a clearer way forward. Regulation 134 of the Public Finance Management (National Government) Regulations on equitable transfer before approval of County Allocation of Revenue Bill provides that- “(1) If the County Allocation of Revenue Bill submitted to Parliament for a financial year has not been approved by Parliament or is not likely to be approved by Parliament, by the beginning of the financial year, the Controller of Budget may authorize withdrawals of up to 50 per cent from the Consolidated Fund based on the last County Allocation of Revenue Act approved by Parliament for the purposes of meeting expenditure of the county governments for the financial year. (2) The authority under paragraph (1) shall cease upon assent of the County Allocation of Revenue Act for the financial year. (3) The transfer to county governments made under paragraph (1) under this regulation shall form part of their equitable transfer for the financial year.” It is prudent to remember that these regulations are made under authority conferred on the Cabinet Secretary under Section 205 of the PFM Act and the principles espoused under Article 94(5) of the Constitution. It is my unequivocal position that whereas the principal Act does not deal directly with the question of transfers in the absence of the County Allocation of Revenue Act, the Regulations are clear on the remedy available to counties. The conundrum we are faced with has been the subject of judicial consideration. In Advisory Opinion No.3 of 2019 (Council of Governors and 47 others versus Attorney- General and six others) the question of funds transfer to county governments in the event of a delay in the process of enacting the Division of Revenue Bill was canvassed by the Supreme Court. The following constitutes the court’s ruling on the matter- “It is therefore our considered opinion that should an impasse occur due to the failure of the mediation process, occasioned by the lack of concurrence between the two Houses over the Division of Revenue Bill, the National Assembly shall, for the purpose of meeting the expenditure necessary to carry on the services of the County Government during that year until such time as the Division of Revenue Act is assented to, authorize the withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund. The monies so withdrawn shall be included, under separate vote(s) for the several services in respect of which they were withdrawn. It is to be expected that each County Assembly, would have to re-adjust their respective budgets and appropriation bills accordingly. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}