Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1494928,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1494928/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 54,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Osotsi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13588,
        "legal_name": "Osotsi Godfrey Otieno",
        "slug": "osotsi-godfrey-otieno"
    },
    "content": "I do not know whether the proposer of this Bill has checked on Clause 11, which says- “Financial reports shall be submitted to the Commission on Revenue Allocation with a copy to the Controller of Budget.” Maybe it wanted to refer to the office of the Auditor-General (OAG) because I do not see the role of the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA) in this case. Matters of financial reports are handled by the OAG. Maybe, the Deputy Speaker, you can look at that. That, to me, seems to be an error. If we go to the issue of disbursement contained in Subsection 109E (1) it says- “The County Treasury shall, at the beginning of every month, and in any event not later than the fifteenth day from the commencement of the month, disburse monies to the County Assembly Fund for the expenditure of the following month. I heard colleagues had an issue with this particular provision. However, this is in line with the Public Finance Management (PFM) Act. Where I have a problem, is the subsection 2 of that Clause which says- “The disbursement referred to in subsection (1) shall be done in accordance with a schedule prepared by the County Treasury and submitted to the County Assembly for approval together with the County Appropriation Bill under section 129(7)”. This needs to be looked at so that we do not bog down county assemblies on matters of disbursement schedule which is never adhered to. Even here in this House, we pass this Schedule, but no one bothers to follow it. Our counties, for example, are currently running without the disbursement for August, September and October. So, we need to enhance this issue of disbursement so that it should be disbursed strictly in compliance with the schedule that has been passed. Otherwise, there would be no need of passing this Schedule. Clause 7, Section 119A says- “The Controller of Budget shall have viewer rights access to all bank accounts maintained by the county executive, the county assembly and all other county government entities.” This is very progressive. How I wish that the same can be done to the PFM Act so that the CoB does not just approve expenditure, but he or she has access to the expenditures as indicated in the bank accounts. What counties do is seeking approval, make requisitions and then once approval has been given, they pay other things. That is what is called diversion of funds. This particular provision, if implemented, it will enhance accountabilities of the monies that have been sent to our county assemblies. However, the PFM Act should also be amended so that the CoB has access to the bank accounts of these counties so that it can know how monies are being used. We will be able to know whether there is any diversion of funds to other things, which is a common practise in our counties. This Bill is very progressive. This Bill is long overdue, and I thank the Deputy Speaker for sponsoring it. We cannot continue seeing our Members of County Assemblies (MCAs) suffering. When we go to the village, we see these leaders living in 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."
}