Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1064530,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1064530/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 227,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kipipiri, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Amos Kimunya",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 174,
        "legal_name": "Amos Muhinga Kimunya",
        "slug": "amos-kimunya"
    },
    "content": "This is a fairly procedural matter despite the Mover and the Seconder taking us through a whole lot of history on the Bill. We debated the Division of Revenue Bill in this House. We then sent it to the Senate because of some historical issues and in compliance with an advisory from the courts in as much as we do not see the relevance of referring it to the Senate. This is a matter of appropriation, which should have been finalised by the National Assembly. The Senate, in their wisdom, looked at some of those things and said that the memorandum item needs to be re-done in a certain way. So, because that change to the original presentation, it needed to come back here. We are not talking about the figures or how much money will go to the county governments and how much will remain at the national level. The changes are on presentation issues. We do not need to dwell a lot on it. I wish it was substance. This is a matter of presentation and disclosure. We have the Estimates, which will show each of these individual Items in the different Votes. We can then spend more time on the substance. However, in terms of matters to do with form, again, it is just something that we need to do because it has come back to us. I want to thank the Senate because they have also highlighted an issue that came from the courts. Moving forward, even as we engage, I hope with the reforms in the Judiciary, at some point, we will get clarity in terms of to what extent should courts be prescribing what happens in the House or how money is appropriated. I am not sure if they have the expertise to rule on some of those things. However, since they have done it and we must respect the courts, we are then bound to look at how that kind of presentation takes place. Members, perhaps, we still have two processes. We have to get into a Committee of the whole House to consider this Bill and get back to the House. Given the limited time that we have, if Members are willing, we could cut our debate on this matter. We debated the Division of Revenue Bill in this House. The only change is a presentation issue. We should not be debating on whether we should present the Bill like this or like that because we have agreed with the Senate. To the extent that we agreed, there is no debate. We should just move on and finish this matter so that it can go for assent to unlock the door for the Printed Estimates to come to this House before 30th April 2021. The same courts declared that we cannot have the Printed Estimates being brought to the House or even being prepared by the National Treasury until we have the Division of Revenue Act – not the Division of Revenue Bill. This means it has to be assented to. The Constitution puts the limit that the Estimates need to be in this House by Friday. Today is Wednesday. We only have tomorrow to have this Bill assented to. The National Treasury will then bring the Printed Estimates to this House before the constitutional deadline. We will end up in a quagmire of legal issues. Therefore, I would like to urge the House that we hold our horses. We have enough time in the afternoon to speak on so many other issues. We have tomorrow. However, for now, we can just dispose of this matter as fast as possible and make progress on the bigger issue; the estimates coming to the House. With that, I beg to support."
}