HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1545721,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1545721/?format=api",
"text_counter": 26,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Cheruiyot",
"speaker_title": "The Senate Majority Leader",
"speaker": {
"id": 13165,
"legal_name": "Aaron Kipkirui Cheruiyot",
"slug": "aaron-cheruiyot"
},
"content": "rather straightforward to us here in the Senate, yet, for reasons well known to all of us, a push-pull between our colleagues in the National Assembly and us has brought us to March, actually April, because this is the last week of March, which is the last quarter of the financial year that counties are now going to receive funds that otherwise they should have received as early as July 1st, 2024. This is not what our Constitution intended when we drafted the Ornaments of Devolution. It was envisioned that funds would be released in a timely manner, that we would agree on basic issues, and that we would get our counties up and running. In fact, I am saying this because I wish to lay a basis for many of our colleagues to understand why we are here. Then I will speak broadly on this Bill. I will allow the Whip, who is a member of the Finance and Budget Committee, to perhaps get into the deeper details. There is a history of how we started doing this Bill. I served on the Finance and Budget Committee. In fact, in the last few weeks, governors, those who understand the operations between us and the National Assembly better, have been calling and texting, asking if we can revert to the old system. I have had occurrences where I have met leaders and governors who probably have served here in the Senate. They understand this unique yet difficult relationship that we have to exist with our colleagues from the National Assembly, who do not necessarily sometimes share the same sentiments, as us, on matters of devolution. Previously, all these allocations used to come under the division of revenue, and we would consider one Bill, and that would be the end of business. Unfortunately, we observed a trend where the National Treasury would additionally send resources, either through grants, donations, or loans, to various counties without following a particular order. By as late as 2017 and 2018, it was clear that some counties were benefiting more than others. You will find that we have completed the division of revenue and followed the formula set out by the Senate. Additionally, there would be projects that would come up. Let us say the projects that are now listed here – you have been a governor, you know this, under the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), Financing Locally-Led Climate Action (FLLoCA) Programme, and the rest. The National Treasury will haphazardly make the decision and say, \"We will put some to Nyamira, others to--- I do not know which county,” to the exclusion of others. We felt this was not the proper format for rolling out devolution in our country and that is how this Bill of the county government's additional allocations, came about. We never imagined, though, that that decision that was made in the best interest of our counties to ensure that equity reigns supreme, as the demands of our Constitution expect of us, as a House of equity, will later be used to undermine devolution. It is quite unfortunate that it has taken inordinately long for there to be an agreement, especially in a context where the Senate is a bystander. Of course, unless you are a stranger in this House, you know that the Road Maintenance Levy Fund (RMLF) has caused this delay. Where we cannot agree, and Bills are moved, sometimes decisions are made without even consultation with the Senate. Therefore, it gets stuck. 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."
}