Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 297171,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/297171/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 213,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Bill may not be assented to or is unlikely to be assented to at the beginning of a new financial year. It will be recalled that the Chair emphasized the doctrine of separation of powers and the prerogative of each arm of the Government to proceed in the budget process based on its interpretation of the Constitution and that for Parliament’s part, he would have recourse to Article 259(1) of the Constitution requiring the Constitution to be interpreted in a manner that promotes its purposes, values, principles, advances the rule of law, permits the development of law and contributes to good governance. Applying these provisions, the Speaker, underlining his hope that the shortcomings occasioned by the Executive in the budget process last year would not recur, allowed the budget process to proceed but also set out guidelines for this year’s and subsequent budget processes. 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, he tabled before the House a judgment by Justice David Majanja in the 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, I think I had one page which was typed twice. Nevertheless, as pointed out by hon. Mbadi, the matter of last year’s budget process and in particular the Vote on Account found its way to the High Court in the Jayne Mati Case where the court was urged to find that the National Assembly contravened Articles 114, 206, 221, and 222 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya by permitting debate, approving and passing the Motion on Vote on Account authorizing the withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund without the passing of an Appropriation Bill. In the judgment of the High Court, which was tabled by hon. Mbadi, the court ruled, among other things in paragraph 25 of the ruling, that Article 222 contemplates the existence of an Appropriation Bill hence the reference to the words in Article 221 which say: “If the Appropriation Act for the financial year has not been assented to or is not likely to be assented to”. These words import the existence of a Bill that is within the legislative process or a Bill which has been passed, but is awaiting Presidential assent.” Paragraph 27 of the same ruling – Judgement: I, therefore hold that for there to be compliance with Article 222, there must be an Appropriation Act or Bill in place and it was in breach of the Constitution to proceed to withdraw money from the Consolidated Fund without the existence of an Appropriation Act or Bill. This finding does not end the matter. Despite this finding of the court, Justice Majanja declined to issue the declaration sought in the petition on the grounds that he was satisfied that the Speaker’s ruling to allow the Vote on Account to proceed last year – the procedures adapted and directions given by the Speaker - were made in good faith and they were not calculated to undermine the constitutional bedrock of the Budget process and the Constitution itself. It was unclear as to whether the Minister for Finance was aware of this judgement in bringing the Motion for Vote on Account and, if so, how, regardless of the ruling of the Chair, he proposes to deal with it in light of the doctrine of separation of powers, as I"
}