Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1565877,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1565877/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 292,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "want to go back to the fundamentals of revenue division. There are two things that I would invite the Senate to look at in the law. Of course, we agree that Article 203 of the Constitution is very clear. If you look at sub-article (1), after addressing that when sharing this money, we shall take into account national interests and provide for public debt, which is another issue. That if public debt is top on the list of things, we must be very careful and pay full attention to public debt. On Article 203 (c), it states that we take care of the needs of the county and national Government. However, if you look at Article 203(d) (e) and (f), they all address devolution. In fact, the word in (d) is that they need to ensure that county governments are able to perform the functions allocated to them. That is the kind of funding we need to give them. There is also the requirement that we have to develop fiscal capacity and efficiency. We have looked at developmental and other needs of the counties. When you go further down Article 203(i), we must work for the economic optimisation of each county and to provide incentives for each county to optimise its capacity to raise revenue. Now, own-source revenue is an area that is again heavily abused in counties. When you look at it, in my own county of Busia, reports have even been made, but no action is taken. You will find that they talked of operationalising or computerising revenue collection. However, when you look at it, it is just some fraud scheme that allows them to collect revenue that does not get reflected and go into the County Revenue Funds (CRF). I want to look at Article 203(2), which states that- “For every financial year, the equitable share of the revenue raised nationally that is allocated to county governments shall not be less than 15 per cent of all revenue collected by the national Government.” Now that is a floor that has been set, but the revenue must ensure the upper things. The 15 per cent is just a floor that has been set. It is not a requirement that 15 per cent goes to counties. The requirement is that not less than 15 percent, but whatever goes to counties must achieve what is declared up there. When you go to (3), I have a strong feeling that this clause has been totally misinterpreted. If you look at the approved revenues, it is said under the recommendations, recommendation (b), the Schedule to the Bill be amended to reflect the following- “(b) (ii) the most recent account of revenue as approved by the National Assembly, which is Kshs1,920,434,085,078 for the Financial Year 2021/2022.” What we know is that the Auditor-General has submitted reports for the Financial Year 2023/2024. We are now in the Financial Year 2024/2025. The audit reports were submitted and these figures should be based on the audit report of 2022/2023 Financial Year, not 2023/2024 Financial Year, for the following reasons- Article 203(3) of the Constitution says that the amount referred to in clause (2), that is, 15 per cent, shall be calculated on the basis of the most recent audited accounts of revenue received, as approved by the National Assembly."
}