Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1475993,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1475993/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 382,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Sifuna",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13599,
        "legal_name": "Sifuna Edwin Watenya",
        "slug": "sifuna-edwin-watenya"
    },
    "content": "Where is the Governor of Bungoma now? Is he not depending on the Senator for Bungoma to make these arguments? Some of these governors make our lives very difficult. I remember when this matter was before the committee and I have never seen such a high attendance of governors before this House. All of them were here because it was a question discussing the revenue going to counties. They make it difficult for this Senate to make these arguments. We make these arguments not because we like our governors, but because we swore to defend devolution. I understand the money I pass in this House does not go to Sakaja as an individual, but it goes to the people of Nairobi and the programmes of the people of Nairobi. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the reason I oppose this is four-fold. Firstly, Section 2 of this Bill talks about the purpose of the Bill, which is to amend the Division of Revenue Act, 2024, so that you can have what the Bill strangely calls, equitable sharing of the shortfall in revenue. Now, this is something that I have never heard of before because, in my reading of Article 202 of the Constitution, the only thing that is subject to equitable sharing is the national revenue that has been raised. There is no mention anywhere in the Constitution of sharing of shortfalls. Therefore, from the onset, you can see that the object of this Bill is unconstitutional. Number two, my reading and understanding of the Constitution is that there is an annual division and allocation of revenue Bill. If you look at the Constitution's provisions, it only speaks about an annual Division of Revenue Bill. That means, every 12 months, Parliament is only allowed one Division of Revenue Bill. There is no way you can introduce a second one. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, once we have passed that Bill, it is my view that because the Constitution talks of an annual division of revenue, you cannot introduce a second one. It comes only once and it is provided for. You cannot have more than one annual Division of Revenue Bill. In my view and interpretation of the Constitution, the annual revenue allocation Bill. It has been the tradition of previous Divisions of Revenue Bill to provide that the shortfall in revenue is to be borne by the national Government. Curiously, this Bill proposes to amend Section 5 of the Bill that we passed here earlier this year, requiring that the shortfall be borne by both the national and county governments. It even goes further to say that the shortfall to be borne by the national Government cannot exceed 15 per cent, which is why I want to come to the third reason why I strongly oppose this, Bill. It is that limitation of the ceiling to which the national Government can bear the shortfall that has resulted in this Bill proposing an even smaller amount than the amount that we passed in this House for the last financial year. What we want to agree on - and this is a debate we have had here with my colleagues in the Senate - is that whatever happens any financial year, we as a Senate cannot pass a Division of Revenue Bill that reduces the amount of money going to be allocated to the counties if compared to what we had passed in the previous financial year. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only.A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and Audio Services,Senate."
}