Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1382465,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1382465/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 351,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Nakuru Town East, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. David Gikaria",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "every county constitute its own committee to make decisions? So, the Committee looked into the sharing formula proposed in the Bill. Mining and minerals are a reserve of the national Government. This is well established in the Constitution and detailed in the Mining Act, 2016. The role of county governments is limited to implementation of specific national Government policies. Our Constitution classifies land as private, public or community. Who is vested with powers of owning that land? Mostly, it is county governments. Our Constitution says that, where minerals are underneath the land, they become the property of the national Government. So, it is giving county governments overlapping functions and this will not work. This Bill presents constitutional and administrative implementation challenges by assigning national functions to county governments. This is the overlap we saw. As I said, it originated from the Senate because they were looking for some work to do. Even though I am not a lawyer, I know that Article 61 of the Constitution stipulates that land belongs to the county governments but minerals underneath belong to the national Government. Benefit sharing is specific to a sector and several Acts of Parliament governing natural resources have already set out benefit sharing frameworks. For instance, last year, we passed the Climate Change (Amendment) Bill, 2023 on carbon projects. That Bill provides clauses on how the national Government, the county governments and the respective communities will benefit from selling carbon credits. I think the percentages are 15 per cent to national Government, 10 per cent to county governments and 5 per cent to the community. The common benefit sharing ratio for renewable and non-renewable extractive resource is, therefore, inequitable by failing to consider the unique nature of each resource. So, we cannot compare sand with gold or important minerals that are used to make phones and laptops. We need to separate resources. This Bill is not doing so. The Mining Act, 2016 provides for determination of royalties payable. I want to speak on the thinking of the current administration about mining. The Kwale community collected royalties worth Kshs4 billion. Royalties payable were almost Ksh1 billion to the county. Once the county gets the money, the community is put at the back seat. The community is asking about the Ksh1 billion they were given as royalties for titanium. They are the people who are feeling the brunt of environmental degradation and yet, the county government has put that money on something else. This is where the county marginalises or refuses to release the money to the respective communities that are affected. That is something we were looking into. There are major overlaps of the Bill with existing legislation."
}