Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1570330,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1570330/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 221,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. M. Kajwang’",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "revenue that is annually allocated to the county level of government. This is one of the few original functions of the Senate. Remember, even impeachment begins at the National Assembly. That is where the indictment and trial is done in this Chamber. However, when it comes to this formula, the Constitution is very clear that it is the Senate that originates it by a resolution. In the event the National Assembly disagrees with the Senate, the threshold has also been defined. The threshold is so high and it can only be amended by the National Assembly. If two-thirds of the Members of the National Assembly vote in support of an amendment. This is an extremely important exercise that is done every five years. If you examine comparative jurisdictions, the United Kingdom (UK) has been struggling with the concept of devolution and the sharing of resources between the centre and the other entities like Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. However, in their case, they came up with what is called the Barnett Formula. The Barnett Formula is fairly fixed. I know it has been criticised and has featured even when the regions are doing referendum for cessation. It has been accused of perpetuating disparities amongst the regions. However, in the UK, you do not need a resolution or Parliament to decide how resources are shared between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In South Africa, they have the provincial equitable share formula. Their devolution structure is not very different from ours. Nigeria also have a formula, which has a lot of parameters given effect through an Act of Parliament. Since we promulgated this Constitution, we have had three formulas. The first and the second formula were largely the same. If you looked at the factors that were there, it was slightly tinkering with the numbers. In the first formula, population was at 45 per cent and was the same in the second formula. Equitable share was at 25 per cent in the first formulae and was 26 in the second one. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, Kenya has not really changed the basis of allocation of revenue until the third formula. I was in the House when we had the classic debate on the third formula for revenue allocation. It took almost 11 sittings of this House. Each sitting was extremely volatile, noisy and contentious as we sought to find a middle ground to ensure that there was some equity in allocation of resources. The Plenary and kamkunjis, which Sen. Mungatana has referred to, could not resolve the matter. As it was then and is now, we would go into kamkunjis and agree informally. However, when Members came to the Floor, they would play to the political persuasions that they subscribe to. For 11 meetings, we could not agree on anything. Ultimately, the House resolved to set up a bipartisan committee. I was privileged to be a Member of it. This committee was co-chaired by the former Senator, Hon. Moses Wetangula, and the current Governor of Nairobi City County, Hon. Sakaja. We spent a lot of time in this Chamber. We met for almost one week. However, the agreement that we came up with was not based on any science. It was based on this concept called holding harmless and making sure that nobody lost. We froze an amount and said that a certain amount would still be distributed on the basis of the second"
}