Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 297249,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/297249/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 291,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, but let me conclude. The reason why the drafters of this Constitution provided that there must be an Appropriation Bill is because they wanted to stop the Government from spending up to 50 per cent without Parliament giving express approval and you can only give an approval for expenditure through a Bill. So for me, if this House will sit again like we did last year, we will be judged harshly. We are setting a bad precedent; we are allowing the Executive and more particularly the mandarins at the Treasury who do not want to obey the law, to proceed doing things the way they were doing them yesterday before this Constitution came into effect and that is what Kenyans seriously fought for. We wanted a new Constitution to have a break from the past. We did not seek for this Constitution again to have excuses like I hear from the Front Bench. The Minister pleading with us for something he would have done differently. We gave him the Estimates two weeks ago. If he wanted to comply with the law; if the Minister really seriously wanted to comply with the law, he would have made an attempt to comply with the law. But if you look at what the Minister is doing even by promising this House that he will take into consideration the views of the Budget Committee which were passed by this House, his actions are totally indicating a different kind of direction. If you look at the letter which I tabled here yesterday, the Minister is very clear. He is saying:- “The Treasury, in principle, is agreeable to recommendations made by hon. Members of Parliament. However, we have noted that some of the proposed expenditure cuts while implementing the Budget could have adverse effects on the ability of the Government in delivering some critical services”. If the Minister wanted to convince us the way he is trying to convince us through this letter when he appeared before the Budget Committee, he would have had his way. If he did not have his way, he is a Member of Parliament and he would have brought those relevant amendments to the House for the House to deliberate on. Once the House has made a resolution; the House has passed the Estimates, the Minister cannot again come to the House and tell the House that he cannot implement what we did. He has no capacity; he has no powers. He is trying to abrogate and give himself powers that he does not have. Unfortunately, this House is allowing the Minister to commit an illegality. This House is allowing the Minister to undermine the authority of the House. It is sad that we continue to allow the Minister to undermine the authority of the House. The House has already made a resolution. The House has told you that this is what is supposed to be in the Estimates but he comes and tells the House that he cannot implement them. Who gave the Minister those powers? Could someone read to me in the Constitution where the Minister for Finance has such powers? If it used to be there, it ceased to be there a long time ago. I see a number of hon. Members thinking that if we do not pass this Vote on Account, there will be a shut down. That is not correct. We are not adjourning. We are not going on Recess today. Why can we not ask the Minister to do the right thing so that by next week we pass the Vote on Account if it is necessary, so that next week we give the Government money that it desires. We still have up to 30th June, so we can forego one more week just to comply with the law but I beseech and plead with Parliament: Let us not violate the Constitution which we struggled so hard to get for this country."
}