Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1274864,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1274864/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 308,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Wakili Sigei",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The provisions of Clauses 19 and 20 of the draft Bill, in my view, are superfluous. The section of the Bill that creates the technical committee is provided for under Clauses 17 and 18. Clauses 19 and 20 create sub-county technical committees. In my view, this is irrelevant for two reasons. One, in the areas identified by the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA), they do not include all sub-counties. In fact, there are certain counties that do not benefit at all from this fund. For instance, in my county, there are only three out of 25 wards that are benefiting from this fund. These three wards are all domiciled in one particular sub-county. Madam Temporary Speaker, I see no reason why we should create other technical committees from other four sub-counties that do not benefit. I propose that the committee re-looks at the importance and the relevance of this particular provision and delete the provisions of Clauses 19 and 20 because there will be no need. I am aware that there are only three wards in Bomet County; namely, Chebunyo, Nyangores and Sigor to benefit, yet the Act will expect the county to develop and establish other technical committees from other non-benefiting sub-counties. I wish to convince the committee that we do not need the two sections. For obvious reasons, we would need to utilize the unnecessary creation of legislations, which are not of any use. We also need to minimize possible utilization of public resources in the creation of such technical committees and the attendant expenditure that they will require for purposes of establishing and convening sessions. In most cases, these sessions are not necessarily of relevance to support the work of the fund. Madam Temporary Speaker, Clause 23(1) provides for the functions of the County Executive Committee Member (CECM). In this case, the relevant person is the CEC member in charge of finance. Pursuant to Clause 23(1) of the Bill, the CEC member is required to report to the board under section Six of this draft Bill. The CEC member who will be sitting as a technical member of the committee, is expected to report to the board as provided for under Clause Six. Madam Temporary Speaker, Article 179(6) of the Constitution provides for the mandate of the CEC of any particular county. Allow me to, make specific reference to that– “Members of a county executive committee are accountable to the county governor for the performance of their functions and exercise of their powers.” Whereas the Constitution mandates the CEC member to report to the governor, the draft Bill here anticipates that the CEC member will report to the board that is established under Section Six. Madam Temporary Speaker, one is most likely going to challenge the constitutionality of that particular provision. When we provide for the functions of this particular CEC member, we should ensure that we do not contravene the provisions of the Constitution as well as the provisions of Section 36 of the County Governments Act that spell out the roles of a CEC."
}