Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 297173,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/297173/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 215,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "have enunciated. I think that it would have been useful to hear the thoughts of the hon. Attorney-General, the Principal adviser to the Government on this matter. Hon. Members, on the issue of the estimates on which the Vote on Account should be based, given that Article 221 of the Constitution is in force and requires interpretation in the spirit of Article 259 of the Constitution, it follows that the Appropriation Bill referred to in Clause 7 of Article 221 of the Constitution and which subsequently gives rise to the Appropriation Act referred to in Article 221 of the Constitution is based on the estimates of expenditure that have been reviewed and approved by the House in line with Article 2216 of the Constitution. In this regard, an Appropriation Bill which draws its legal mandate from Article 222 of the Constitution cannot be based entirely on drafts of estimates of expenditure unilaterally presented to this House by any single arm of Government. It will follow that an Appropriation Bill needs to be based on estimates that result from a comprehensive review – an amalgamation by this House, which in this case, would be the estimates that result from the approval of this House of the report of the Budget Committee on the 2012/2013 estimates of the revenue and expenditure. Hon. Members, arising from the foregoing and considering all pertinent circumstances, I will now rule on the way forward on this matter. In so doing, I am guided by the precedence of this House, our Constitution and of other kindred jurisdictions on the matter of Vote on Account. I also know that the current Article 222 of the Constitution is not entirely new. Section 101 of the former Constitution had similar provisions and was the basis for the Vote on Account. It was not understood in law or practice to be a requirement that the publication of an Appropriation Bill had to precede the Motion for Vote on Account. But that is not all. The argument that Article 222(1) has an implication that there has to be in existence a published Appropriations Bill can be countered by the equally persuasive argument that there is no such implication and the Vote on Account is introduced as set out in Article 222. This is the Article - If the Appropriation Act for a financial year has not been assented to, or is not likely to be assented to, by the beginning of that financial year so as to enable the National Assembly to authorize the withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of meeting expenditure necessary to carry out on the services of the National government during that year until such time as the Appropriation Act is assented to---. The Article is clear; the amount to be withdrawn should not exceed in total one-half of the amount included in the estimates of expenditure for that year that have been tabled in the National Assembly. The Vote on Account, therefore arises if the Appropriation Act for the financial year has not been assented to or is not likely to be assented to by the beginning of the year. The provision in the Constitution proceeds and says – I read:- “(1) If the Appropriation Act for a financial year has not been assented to, or is not likely to be assented to, by the beginning of that financial year so as to enable the National Assembly to authorize the withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund. (2) Money withdrawn under clause (1) shall- (a) be for the purpose of meeting expenditure necessary to carry out the services of the national government during that year until such time as the Appropriation Act is assented to;"
}