Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1064271,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1064271/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 381,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. (Eng.) Hargura",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 827,
        "legal_name": "Godana Hargura",
        "slug": "godana-hargura"
    },
    "content": "only about people. We know that resources are shared and services are delivered based on the way people are settled. In a sparsely populated area, like my county, the cost of delivery of services is more than in a densely populated county like Nairobi. Already, Article 217 gives us how that formula is generated. In that formula, already, the marginalized and sparsely populated areas have been jeopardized because the land area has been capped. What this amendment is saying is: Now that we have the formula, put in the variables. Once you have calculated and generated for every county, then go back again and look at what the per capita for the most densely populated county like Nairobi is, and then no county gets more than three times per person. You are now introducing another formula on top of that formula, which some of us feel that already we have been jeopardized by capping population. This is a case of double jeopardy for the sparsely populated areas because we are introducing that capping again. That is why the Committee in their Report found an issue with this. This is an area which needs to be looked at because it disadvantages already disadvantaged areas. I will tie the Equalization Fund on this, because the argument has been that marginalized areas will benefit from the Equalization Fund. The Equalization Fund, which is 0.5 per cent of the revenue, has not been utilized for the last ten years or since the promulgation of the Constitution 2010. The sunset clause is that it runs for 20 years. Already, ten years are gone and nothing has been done. In 2016, there was a court ruling that suspended the use of the mode of implementation, but I am wondering because the Constitution is very clear that the national Government can use it directly or give it as conditional funds to the counties. It is very clear. We have a problem because of lack of goodwill for implementation. Clause 51 amends Article 21, saying that we extend the period from 20 years to 30 years. By doing so, we are saying that we will use it only for 20 years. The problem is that for the last 10 years, the Executive did not find any goodwill to come up with the enabling regulations or legislations to implement this. What assurance do we have that anything will happen in the next 20 years? Nobody should look at equalization and say that we are capping on this end because you are benefiting on the other end. That benefit is not there."
}