Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 396352,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/396352/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 85,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "was Kshs1,380,000,000, but this was reduced to Kshs1,000,000,000. The variance is Kshs380 million considering that there was lack of capacity by the county government in preparation of the budget. The PFM Act 2012 stipulates that the county assemblies shall consider the county governments’ budget estimates with a view of approving them with or without amendments. I think the problem here is that the due process was not followed. When the county executive felt that it did not agree with what the county assembly had done, it should have made alterations and referred back or made consultations so that the amendments made are in agreement. That is where they erred. We have spoken to both the executive and the county assembly. We have tried to advise them to improve their relationship because, at the end of the day, the county assembly has to oversight the budgets. From time to time, the executive needs to consult with the county assembly. The Controller of Budget ordered that investigations be done with regard to this report. The report has now been returned with recommendations which are outlined. One recommendation is lack of capacity which I have touched on. There is also the variance that has been highlighted and the IFMIS system which is a big contributor. I support this report because devolution is new to all of us. Everybody is learning. We are all in a learning process. I think we need to give Turkana County a chance. We should adopt the Report for them to move on. Next time, with the support of the Controller of Budget, they will prepare their budget in a proper manner."
}