Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1120505,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1120505/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 335,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. M. Kajwang'",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13162,
        "legal_name": "Moses Otieno Kajwang'",
        "slug": "moses-otieno-kajwang"
    },
    "content": "Page 6 of this report has the composition of Equalization Fund Advisory Board. The Senate and the National Assembly have each a nominee. The problem I have is that the National Assembly has cast it in stone that their nominee shall be a pastoralist. We are still looking at Equalization Fund as a carrot for pastoralists. We are still looking at pastoralists as people who do not belong to this country such that we must extend certain favors and yet, they pay taxes. A pastoralist herding 50 heads of camel is richer than somebody else who is purporting to be hawking in the middle of Nairobi or sitting with his PhDs in Kisumu. It is dangerous for us to do a regulation and say that the nominee of the National Assembly must be a pastoralist. If this fund is going to apply in places such as Soklo in Mfangano, should we then demand that the nominee be a fisherman because the people there are fishermen? That is a very dangerous matter that can be informed by the procedures we adopt as Parliament but should not be cast in stone. I am glad the Senate has left it open and said it shall have one nominee. It is dangerous for us to restrict the National Assembly nominee to be a pastoralist. On the sunset clause that is talked about in the Constitution, definitely, this Parliament must move to extend the tenure of the Equalization Fund because a lot of time has been lost. These marginalized areas ought to have benefited from that money because it is not a favour but a constitutional entitlement to those people who have been left behind when other parts of the country were leapfrogging in terms of development. The High Court of Kenya had initially pronounced itself on the matter and said that disbursement of the money should be through counties. If it is through counties, it should follow that management should be through counties. I have already elaborated my concerns about the County Technical Committee that is chaired by the County Commissioner. We are not talking small amounts of money. They are not as small as the monies that go to county as Road Maintenance Levy Fund (RMLF) but hundreds of millions of Kenya shillings. we cannot have a situation where the county governor receives the money only to cede it to the County Commissioner sitting with NG-CDF chairs and members. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, I do not see why you should still bring in the aspect of NG-CDF chairs, Secretaries and members into the Equalization Fund. This is because it is different from the national Government Development Fund and the national Government Affirmative Action Fund. If we are to bring in the NG-CDF, then those people on the national Government Affirmative Action might also want to be represented on that table and then we are going to have a very crowded situation. I feel that these regulations, even though urgent, could benefit from some short moment of reflection. I do not trust the Executive and National Treasury to come back to this House within six months. I trust the concerns raised by the CRA, CoB, CBK and CoG and a few Members on this Floor, that we still need to do a little bit more."
}