Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1063202,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1063202/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 194,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Orengo",
    "speaker_title": "The Senate Minority Leader",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 129,
        "legal_name": "Aggrey James Orengo",
        "slug": "james-orengo"
    },
    "content": "My only observation before I go into the content of what I want to contribute is that more than any other Bill, the Division of Revenue Bill is so critical and is a fulcrum of the activities of the Senate. It is a bit of a shame that we are bringing it through a Special Sitting when most Members will not have the opportunity to look at the Report, dissect it and look at the Bill as it is presented. That is a bit unfortunate knowing our role. If you read Articles 217 and 218, our role is mandatory. We cannot move a step forward in the budgeting process without the passage of the Division of Revenue Bill. The courts have said that we cannot have an Appropriations Act prior to the enactment of the Division of Revenue Bill. Going back to our role as the Senate, if our duty is to defend the counties and protect the interest of those who live in them, nothing is as important as the way the resources are shared. It is absolutely unfortunate that in the sharing of these resources, the Senate has the shortest time possible to express itself in this very important issue. I know that part of the difficulty is that when the Bill originates from the National Assembly and its passage after it is introduced controls, to some extent, the time within which it can be introduced in the Senate. However, I hope that in looking at the Constitution as a whole and the Public Finance Management Act, this is something we should do in the future so that we are not put under siege. For example, the budgeting process for the next financial year started some time last year. The product of that process is partly, this Bill. It is not right that it is brought to the Senate at a time when not all Senators are available to fully and qualitatively contribute to it. The other observation that I want to make is that as I speak today, most of the counties have not received their entitlements for the last three months. It is a constitutional obligation on the National Treasury that once we pass this Bill and it is enacted and assented to, anything due to the counties must be sent without delay. It is for good reason that Article 219 of the Constitution was put in very plain words. This is because historically speaking, under the old Majimbo System, one of the ways that was used to kill that initial form of federalism in this country was by denying the regions money or sending it late. I hope that we do not read the Constitution purely as a guide. It looks like when it comes to matters like this, we use it as a guide and not as a directive. The Constitution tells us that anybody who is required to make a decision must do so in strict compliance with its provisions. A three months delay is not reasonable. It is an unfortunate delay of disbursement of funds to the counties. I am glad with the Committee for agreeing with the decision of the High Court that conditional grants cannot be part of sharable revenue. The Executive is good at playing gymnastics. They played it with the medical leasing equipment. It belonged to the counties, but they did not release the funds for them to spend and so they spent it at source. The Constitution says that anything that belongs to the counties must be taken to the counties. It cannot be held to. All the cash must be disbursed to the counties. They are the ones to decide how to spend it within the law and budget. I have seen the observations of the Committee on account of the case which was before the court. It was also reported today in the court."
}