Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1158450,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1158450/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 71,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "On their part, the Leader of the Majority Party, the Chairperson of the Budget and Appropriations Committee and Hon. Mark Nyamita, MP, Member for Uriri, urged the Speaker to allow debate on the Motion for Approval of the First Supplementary Estimates for 2021/2022 Financial Year on the basis of the past practice and precedent of the House in dealing with Supplementary Estimates submitted to the House, noting that issues such as those raised by the Member for Garissa Township have either not been previously raised or have been unanimously overruled by the House when raised. Further, the Leader of the Majority Party offered an interpretation of Article 223(5) of the Constitution with respect to the scope and what constitutes the “10 per cent” limit imposed on the sum of expenditure under Supplementary Appropriation, an interpretation which I must admit is most persuasive, as opposed to the claim that the constitutional limit is imposed on each Vote. Hon. Members, as I have previously held, and upheld the rulings of my able predecessors, a question of the constitutionality or otherwise of any matter under consideration by the House may be raised at any stage of its consideration as the Constitution obliges the Speaker to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution. This obligation is further expressly outlined in Standing Order 47(3) relating to instances which the Speaker may declare a Motion inadmissible for being unconstitutional. While allowing resumption of debate on the First Supplementary Estimates for the Financial Year 2021/2022, I did reserve the delivery of a ruling on the matter until today on account of the urgency of the business in question and bearing in mind that the approval of the Motion on Supplementary Estimates is not the end of the process. Indeed, as the House is aware, the approval of such a Motion is followed by consideration of the necessary Supplementary Appropriation Bill. Hon. Members, I note, from the outset, that I have previously guided that, with regard to the constitutional propriety of matters before the House, the obligation of the Speaker is circumscribed to procedural aspects and facilitation of the proceedings of the House. Any attempts by a Speaker to address the substantive legal aspects of such business would, at the very least, be usurpation of a role reserved for the High Court under Article 165(3) of the Constitution. Therefore, Hon. Members, in addressing the point raised by the Hon. Duale, I shall limit myself to the procedural aspects relating to the First Supplementary Estimates for the Financial Year 2021/2022 as presented by the National Treasury and the need to guide the House in its consideration of the Business relating to Supplementary Estimates. Hon. Members, Article 223 of the Constitution provides as follows with regard to a Supplementary Appropriation, and I quote: “(1) Subject to clauses (2) to (4), the national Government may spend money that has not been appropriated if— (a) the amount appropriated for any purpose under the Appropriation Act is insufficient or a need has arisen for expenditure for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by that Act; or (b) money has been withdrawn from the Contingencies Fund. (1) The approval of Parliament for any spending under this Article shall be sought within two months after the first withdrawal of the money, subject to clause (3). The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}