Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1360431,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1360431/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 337,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Olekina",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 407,
        "legal_name": "Ledama Olekina",
        "slug": "ledama-olekina"
    },
    "content": "The lawyer for the Assembly - Dr. Muthomi Thiankolu, it is a very good name. We are looking at Section 45 Protection of Public Property and Revenue. He referred to Section 45(2)(a)(ii) and (iii). He specifically said goods not supplied or not supplied in full. Secondly, services not rendered or not adequately rendered. The clarity I need to get from him is whether he is relying 100 per cent on the IFMIS extracts or he has received audited financial statements as per Section 31 of the Public Audit Act. I remind him that Section 31(5) stipulates that after the audit process, they shall be tabled in Parliament and also at the Assembly. I would appreciate if he clarified this. Secondly, I asked this question, but I did not get a proper clarification and it has come back again today on the issue of the accounting officer. Section 103 of the Public Finance Management (PFM) Act establishes the County Treasury and it puts the County Executive Committee Member (CECM) in charge of Finance as the head of the County Treasury. Section 199 of the PFM Act, which is the penalty clause, stipulates penalties which are going to befall any public officer who is in charge of resources and does not account for them. Can he kindly clarify whether the documents he has supplied in the case have been audited by the Office of the Auditor-General and an opinion rendered by them on the actual position of those funds?"
}