Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1545638,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1545638/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 193,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Mungatana, MGH",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "the projection and the allocation. However, that is not what is reflected in this BPS. We need to push this to have two separate treasuries. When money is collected, it should be split automatically. The percentage that goes to counties must go to a different treasury than the one going to the counties. This BPS only serves the National Treasury's purpose. We need to interrogate this and ask ourselves if it recognises that county governments also need an equivalent amount in terms of projected increment of ordinary revenue. I suggest that this be looked at afresh. Our mandate, as Senators, is to fight for these county governments. We have come from a history where the first President of this Republic wanted to finish up with majimbo governments. Majimbo governments were equivalent to the counties that we have now. First of all, what he did was to deal with the Senate by merging it with the National Assembly. When they absorbed this, there was no one who was fighting for resources for the majimbo governments. Then, the majimbo governments died a natural death. If that had not happened more than 50 years ago, then we would not be talking of only one trunk road in the entire Tana River County. We would not be talking of segregation in terms of development for the Arid and Semi-Arid Land (ASAL) counties because we would have had our own majimbo . Senators would have been fighting for our resources. Maybe we would have good schools as they are in other regions, and have a better road network, as they are in other regions, title deeds are as available in our areas as they are in other regions. The segregation and discrimination that these regions suffered were caused by that decision at that time.We want to be clear that this BPS seems to favour only the national Government. If there are 10 per cent increments, the correct thing to do is also to state clearly that there will be at least a 10 per cent increment to the counties. The other second thing I want to focus on is that in December, 2024, the Intergovernmental Relations Technical Committee (IGTRC) identified, delineated and transferred several functions to the county governments. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, the BPS of 2025 that we are debating now does not give any framework for allocating and transferring resources to those functions that were allocated or transferred to county governments. So, you can see that this BPS does not reflect the interests of the counties. The thinking in the National Treasury is still only serving the national Government. For those listening to me in Kenya, I am calling for a clear separation of powers. When the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) raises money, we should take it for the national Government to a separate treasury from the money that is supposed to be sent to county governments. If this does not happen, this kind of attitude will continue. The IGRTC sits down and delineates functions. They will transfer some functions from the national Government to county governments, but there are no funds that follow functions. What kind of thinking is this? The BPS does not reflect the simple principle that funds or resources follow function. If these functions have been transferred, why is there no process or framework that has been shown clearly in this BPS? 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."
}