Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1071482,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1071482/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 104,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. (Eng.) Hargura",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 827,
        "legal_name": "Godana Hargura",
        "slug": "godana-hargura"
    },
    "content": "to the governor. In the event that maybe the governor has refused to implement the ruling of the House, then it can be an issue, which can be taken against the governor. The first impeachment of Governor Wambora, for example, among other charges, he refused to sack the county secretary who was impeached by the county assembly. In that case, they had done their part and it was the governor who was not ready to do his part, and that is why it was an impeachment ground. In this case, the county assembly brought issues, which could be attributed in law to have been the failures of the county executive Members or accounting officers, which cannot be connected to the governor. That is why in cases where we found the law was broken, we did not penalize the Governor. The other allegation was based on the report of the Auditor-General. However, the Wajir County Assembly has the responsibility to take the audit report and summon the relevant CECM to address the issues raised in the audit report, so that if somebody has broken the law, they are held accountable. It is difficult to pin down the Governor on the shortcomings of his officers because the law is clear that the officer in charge should take responsibility. Mr. Speaker, Sir, on Allegation 14, which carried a lot of the issues affecting procurement, we made conclusion that the law had been broken in certain instances. For example, the procurement of ugali flour was overpriced. Instead of pricing a bale of the maize flour at Kshs1,600, it was procured at Kshs3,500. That is a clear violation of the law. Section 106(4) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal (PPAD) Act, 2015 states that: ‘Where the lowest price is above the prevailing market rates, the request for quotations shall be cancelled or terminated in accordance with the cancellation and termination procedures set out in this Act’ If the price of an item is known and the supplier quotes such a high price, as was the case in this instance, the procurement officer should have cancelled the award of the tender. Section 54(4) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal (PPAD) Act, 2015 states that:"
}