Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1169239,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1169239/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 230,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. (Eng.) Hargura",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 827,
        "legal_name": "Godana Hargura",
        "slug": "godana-hargura"
    },
    "content": "Madam Temporary Speaker, the Committee further noted that during the period under review, most counties had weaknesses in executing their budgets. For example, county executives did not adhere to approved budget ceilings set for programme votes and sub-votes. They either over-utilized or under-utilized appropriated funds. In some instances, funds were reallocated to items that were not in the budget, without any prior approval by either the Controller of Budget (CoB) or relevant county assemblies. We have always insisted on provision of revised or supplementary budgets. However, some county executives change items without referring to the county assemblies, while the law requires county assemblies to pass any changes in the budgets. Supplementary budgets serve as an authority, but they do not do it in most cases. In addition, county entities experienced delays in Exchequer releases from the National Treasury, thereby hampering programme implementation and budget execution. The Committee also observed that the county executives had challenges in meeting targets of their own source revenue collection. This could be attributed to a number of factors like challenges in revenue collection automation, lack of updated valuation rolls as well as the effect of COVID-19 pandemic for these particular periods. We have always insisted that counties should move away from relying on the equitable share and see how they can improve on their own revenue generation because they are in a better position since they have better staffs and resources than the former local authorities. However, you will realize that come counties are collecting less that what local authorities used to collect. That raises questions as to whether it is actually under- collection or under-reporting what has been collected. That is why we have been insisting that they automate their systems so that the revenue is captured right from the source up to when it is being banked. The law requires that whatever they collect must be swept to the County Revenue Fund (CRF) account at the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) before they can now use it, which in some cases they do not do. When you use at the source, then you do not follow that process. In addition, we discovered that county entities continue to flout various financial laws such as the Public Finance Management Act, 2012, The Public Procurement and Assets Disposal Act 2015; The Public Finance Management (County Governments) Regulations, 2015; The County Government Act, 2012; The Public Audit Act, 2015 and, The Income Tax Act, Cap 470, various circulars from statutory bodies such as he Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) among others. As indicated in the Committee’s earlier reports, a number of county entities continue to make payments outside Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS) platform contrary to the Public Finance Management Act, 2015. The habit of processing transactions outside IFMIS platform could be an avenue to bypass financial controls and may have led to misappropriation of funds. In addition, most county entities exhibited abuse of imprest from request approval, surrender and recovery. This is a very clear case that we have seen across most entities. You will find counties having imprest outstanding for more than a year. While the law clearly says that if one has been given an imprest, it has to be surrendered within seven days after they have completed the reason for which they have been given the imprest for. However, in the counties, they do not recover the imprest. On top of that"
}