Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1275759,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1275759/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 283,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Cheruiyot",
    "speaker_title": "The Senate Majority Leader",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13165,
        "legal_name": "Aaron Kipkirui Cheruiyot",
        "slug": "aaron-cheruiyot"
    },
    "content": "audit of this debt; what were the conditions for that particular borrowing and the purpose for which it was borrowed for because that remains unclear. You cannot expect that the people you represent in this House will be in a better position than you, as a Senator, who serves in this House, to tell them of this mechanism. Clause 3 of the Bill seeks also to amend Section 12 of the Act by deleting Paragraph B and introducing provisions that provide for the proper management and efficient use of budgetary resources by national Government entities. There is also the issue of the definition of public debt. There is this conversation about national debt that has created the thinking, especially in Kenya because we have two levels of government, that people imagine that even when we borrow for purposes of funding certain projects in our counties, there is the perception that there is a debt for counties and a separate debt for the national Government. Kenya is one unitary State despite the fact that we have two levels of government. Therefore, it is my expectation and appreciation that even as we make this amendment, we will be in support of the proposal to conclude on this issue and ensure that we just call it a public debt because it is a debt owed by the people of Kenya. As I conclude, Clause 5 of the Bill seeks to amend Section 31 by deleting the words “national debt” wherever they appear and replace them with “public debt” for the same reason I have just explained. It is for the people of Kenya and it makes it in sync with the constitutional provisions. If you read Articles 211 to 214, it is referred to as public debt and not national debt. Therefore, this was an act of poor legislative drafting. Students of legislative drafting should follow this conversation. Many a time while moving Bills here, I have pointed out the need for us to try and maintain the wordings in the Constitution in Bills that we bring to Parliament. When you introduce new phrases or clauses, you confuse members of the public and open yourself for litigation. I agree with that proposal. Clause 6 seeks to amend Section 50 of the PFM Act, that requires the Cabinet Secretary for National Treasury and Planning to submit to Parliament in writing an explanation where specific public debt has exceeded the threshold as is set out in law and also provide reparative measures to restore or improve it. Appreciating the fact that we know where we are as a country, there is no need for further debate on our debt sustainability situation. At least we are beginning to take our place as Parliament and having our stand. Where the public debt has exceeded certain thresholds, a written explanation should be offered to Parliament. Parliament should take its rightful position by receiving all the reports. Many times we are criticised about what we do as legislators. When debate on public debt comes to Parliament, they want to know what we say or do. I appreciate that finally we will have the reins of power. It will enable us do that with ease because it is expressly provided for in the Constitution and subsequently in this legislation. I must commend our Committee because of the way the Bill is drafted; the reporting mechanism was only to the National Assembly. I do not know where some of the drafters come from. I think some of them wake up from drinking stupors and draft legislation without proper reading and reflecting on what the Constitution says."
}