HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1089771,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1089771/?format=api",
"text_counter": 356,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Farhiya",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 13179,
"legal_name": "Farhiya Ali Haji",
"slug": "farhiya-ali-haji"
},
"content": "There is also a penalty clause in the Bill which I will state. It states that interest shall not be waived. There is also a caveat. Once this interest is accrued, according to the Bill, the supplier is not allowed to waive that interest. I felt that this should be so because in a business transaction people can agree to waive. The reason that I kept that clause and I was supported by the Committee on Finance and Budget, is because there is what we call balance of power. For example, they say he who pays the piper, calls the tune. So, the procuring entity always has an upper hand. So, if we left this interest to be negotiated, nothing would have changed. Government institutions have an upper hand and have much more financial muscle and are providers of business. So, small-scale suppliers would be waiving these interests all the time. I got a little bit of backlash on this Bill from people of my faith because they do not believe in interests. We are not allowed to earn interest. However, we do not follow religious laws in the country. Besides, the interest will not be used for people to earn interest but as a deterrent. Therefore, if people of my faith do not want interest, they can pay it to banks to offset other interest or if not, they can pay school fees for a poor person. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, the essence of interests is for it to be a deterrent for people who are not paying other people. However, if they pay within the 90 days, there is no need for anybody to charge it. Due to power imbalances, they are not on equal terms. So, I want to protect the small person who is requesting for business from service users or Government entity from exploitation by making them waive the interest. So, this interest is not waivable. When an entity receives an invoice that is complete, they are supposed to put it in a log and payment, besides the interest accruing after 90 days, is supposed to be first in, first out. The first person who submitted their invoice, should be paid for valid reasons. One, it prevents accruing of interests. It is not the interest of legislators to burden Government institutions. It is the interest of legislators not to burden the institution and the supplier. That is clear. In terms of the due date, the first invoice to arrive is the first invoice to be paid and it is clear in the Bill. So there is a log and there will be a stamp on the invoice to show the date the invoice was submitted. I like the first in, first out approach because it prevents corruption. As it is, people pay 10 per cent when they are given a business. When it is time for payment, unless they part with some money, nobody will pay them. Therefore, this Bill takes care of one end of corruption. So, as a result, you cannot negotiate the interest and it is first in, fast out. So, if your crony’s invoice came yesterday and there is Sen. Were’s which came three months earlier, please pay her first before paying your crony who has bribed you. This Bill has also created space for dispute resolution in regards to invoice. We are all human beings and invoices can be defective. So, that is taken care of. The procuring agent is supposed to give feedback to the person within 14 days. However, at the same time, pay them 50 per cent of the value of the invoice. Interest start to accrue if the three months would have lapsed 14 days thereafter once it is rectified."
}