GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/297169/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 297169,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/297169/?format=api",
"text_counter": 211,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Regarding this particular letter, hon. Mbadi contended that it amounted to a calculated attempt by the Treasury to demonstrate that the Estimates approved by the House were incapable of implementation, a situation he termed as being unacceptable. Hon. Members, by the letter dated 20th June, 2012, the Treasury forwarded to the Clerk of the National Assembly a Motion on Vote on Account for the financial year 2012/2013 duly signed by the Minister for Finance and the Vote on Account Schedules in respect of Recurrent and Development Expenditure for the financial year 2012/2013. Hon. Mbadi contended that in order to ensure compliance with Article 222 of the Constitution, a Motion on Vote on Account for the financial year 2012/2013 could not be introduced for debate in the House unless it was preceded by the introduction of an Appropriation Bill. In support of his position, hon. Mbadi tabled before the House a judgment by Justice David Majanja in a High Court Petition No.108 of 2011: Jayne Mati and Another v. Attorney-General and Another. Hon. Mbadi summed up his contribution by stating that the two letters from Treasury constituted Acts of impunity and violation of the Constitution that should not be condoned. Hon. Members, the Chair undertook to give directions on this matter today, Thursday, 21st June, 2012, noting nevertheless that the House transacts its business based on traditions, precedence, the Standing Orders, the Constitution and other written laws. Hon. Members, from the point of order and arguments made by hon. Mbadi I have determined the following as issues requiring my direction: 1. Whether pursuant to Article 222 of the Constitution, the Motion on Vote on Account is admissible in the House in the absence of a published Appropriation Bill. 2. The implications of the ruling by the High Court of Kenya in the matter of Jayne Mati and Another v. Attorney-General and Another, 2011 delivered by hon. Justice Majanja on 23rd December, 2011. 3. Whether the Vote on Account should be based on the original Estimates laid by the Minister for Finance on 26th April, 2012 or whether it should instead be based on amended and reviewed Estimates in line with the Budget Committee Report adopted by the House on 7th June, 2012. I think that the first two issues can be fairly considered and disposed of together by revisiting the ruling made by the Chair on 7th June, last year as well as the decision of the court in the Jayne Mati Case. Faced with somewhat similar circumstances last year, the Chair ruled that Articles 221 and 222 were in force and that it was incumbent on this House and the Executive to abide by them in the Budget-making process. The Chair explained the elaborate process contemplated by the Constitution culminating into the introduction of an Appropriation Bill in the House by the Minister for Finance, or in future by the Chairperson of the Budget Committee once the Estimates have been approved. The Speaker ruled that the budget process has in-built mechanisms for dealing with unforeseen events in order to avoid the possibility of what is sometimes described as a financial shut down of the Government. It was explained that the purpose of Article 222 of the Constitution is to enable the National Assembly to authorize the withdrawal by the Government of money from the Consolidated Fund in the event that the Appropriation"
}