HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1490812,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1490812/?format=api",
"text_counter": 127,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Osotsi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 13588,
"legal_name": "Osotsi Godfrey Otieno",
"slug": "osotsi-godfrey-otieno"
},
"content": "Apart from poor record management, this is corruption because the authenticity of this document cannot be verified. Some of these documents are generated and cannot be relied on. That is a challenge that we had in this process. Further, various water service providers did not apply proper accounting practices and their financial reports contained numerous inaccuracies and errors and this resulted in inadequate reporting and non-presentation of the actual accurate position of their financial operation. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, for example, to date, we have not concluded on Wajir County because the reports have high inaccuracies or errors and they cannot be relied on to give a proper report. That also applies to counties like Tana River, Garissa, Taita Taveta and others. This is another challenge. However, the idea of this County Public Investment and Special Funds Committee (CPIC) engaging counties on this report was very timely and worthy. We understand that the Senate has not been looking at this, but it gave us an opportunity to now establish a proper framework for governance of these water companies. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, I am sure that, moving forward we will begin to see some significant changes in the way these water service providers are managed. The Committee further noted that during that period under review, most of the water companies had weaknesses in executing their budgets. Budget control and performance was a key query in all these water companies. The county assemblies did not approve most of these budgets. They were not balancing nor were they made after a very elaborate planning process. They were just done because it is a requirement. We have a serious problem with budget control and performance in these companies. They either over-utilized or underutilized appropriated funds and in some cases, funds were not reallocated to items that were not budgeted for and without proper approval by their boards or county assembly. In addition, various water companies failed to comply with the provision of Public Finance Management (PFM) Act 2012, Public Audit Act 2015, Public Finance Management (PFM), County Government Regulations 2015, the Water Act 2016, the Company Act 2015, the Income Tax Act Cap.470 of 1974, the Retirement Benefit Act 1997, the Pension Act 1942, the County Government Act 2012, the Accountants Act 2008 and the Water Service Regulatory Board (WASREB) Regulations. Basically, it means most of these water companies were not complying with the established law. As a result of the highlighted issues, the Auditor General rendered different opinions ranging from a disclaimer opinion, adverse opinion and qualified opinion. Majority of these water companies were either under disclaimer opinion or adverse opinion because of the challenges I have put forth. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, looking at every volume, as I have said, we have processed a number of counties here - actually all the Advanced Technologies (ATEC) companies; the reports have a section indicated as General Observation and Recommendations, which gives a summary of the recurring audit issues across the county water service providers contained in these reports. Members, if you have an opportunity, The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."
}