Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1563769,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1563769/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 177,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Okiya Omtatah",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "There has been a misconception in our counties, where you will often find that Members of Parliament (MPs) sometimes award bursaries based on academic performance, assuming that a high-performing student automatically qualifies. No, a bursary is granted based on the principle that education is a right, and some individuals are unable to access it. As the duty bearer, the state must step in to ensure this right is realized for all. However, due to the fragmentation of bursary distribution and its personalization through politicians handing them out, major problems arise. First and foremost, bursaries tend to be allocated in an opaque manner, making it unclear how much money has been allocated. There is no system of accounting or auditing for it. Number two, the amounts given are very small and cannot bring about any meaningful change. Since politicians are focused on numbers, they may even set up a tent and invite millions of people to receive a pittance in exchange for support. This is of course, followed by the big media event. I, therefore, fully support the Motion by stating that any funds aimed at supporting needy children should be consolidated and placed in the hands of the Ministry of Education. These funds should be administered based on need and objectively realized. Furthermore, I would like to comment on two funds; the NG-CDF and the NGAAF. These funds have largely been used as a means of distributing bursary funds to needy cases and the grassroots. However, these funds are fraud schemes designed by the National Assembly Members to steal from the public. I say they are fraud schemes because they are unconstitutional. If you look at our Constitution, Article 206 clearly states that- “There is established the Consolidated Fund into which shall be paid all money raised or received by or on behalf of the national government, except moneythat— (a) is reasonably excluded from the Fund by an Act of Parliament and payable into another public fund established for a specific purpose; or (b) may, under an Act of Parliament, be retained by the State organ that received it for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the State organ.” There is no provision in the Constitution for creating these fraudulent funds like NG-CDF and NGAAF. I say that because they end up being funded from the consolidated fund. The architecture of the Constitution is that if you set up a fund, you must show where the money will come from outside the consolidated fund. For example, take the fund we are currently debating, a fund like the the Social Health Insurance Fund (SHIF). It clearly states that the money will come from premiums. So, despite all the issues we are contesting, that particular aspect of SHIF conforms with the Constitution because it is being funded through premiums. When you get to NG-CDF, they are taking money from the consolidated fund. However, you cannot use the consolidated fund to finance another fund. They should show us where money will come from. It cannot be sourced from the consolidated fund. There are only two legal ways to do that. Therefore, you will find that both NGAAF and 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."
}