Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 470983,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/470983/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 120,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Cheptumo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 50,
        "legal_name": "William Cheptumo Kipkiror",
        "slug": "william-kipkiror"
    },
    "content": "Secretariat, the CDF board and the Cabinet Secretary, the Committee came up with appropriate recommendations. It is important for hon. Members to take note of the proposed annulments because they will have a direct effect on the running of CDF programmes in our constituencies. On Regulation 5, as presented by the Cabinet Secretary for Devolution and Planning, the Committee has proposed an annulment of the same Regulation. As presented, the Regulation gives a 14 days’ notice for public meetings to be held. The feeling of the Committee, after looking at the general provisions of the Act, is that the proposed period of time is too long. Above all, the notice under Regulation 5(2) is to be served on the ward administrator and the elected ward Member. The concern here is that this has the likely consequences of the CDF Fund being seen as a county fund – which is not the position. We do not want a situation where, after we pass these Regulations here, somebody uses them to challenge the legality of the CDF Fund as a national fund and not a county fund. Therefore, we recommend annulment of Regulation 5 for the reasons I have given. As I said earlier, it is not our business to make new Regulations. It is our duty to apply the law on the proposed Regulations. Hon. Speaker, Regulation 9(2) (d) is another section that became of concern to the Committee. The essence of this proposed Regulation is to place the duty of receiving and undertaking all the correspondence on behalf of the CDF Committee on the Secretary to the CDF Committee. Currently, the Secretary to the CDF is not a full-time employee of the CDF Committee. The office is held by a member of the CDF Committee, who is elected by members of the public. He only goes to the office during meetings and goes home. For us to place the responsibility of receiving correspondence and keeping records to that particular member of the CDF Committee is not proper. This particular provision of the Regulation contravenes Section 24(10) of the Act, which provides that the Fund Accounts Manager shall be the custodian of all records and equipment of the CDF. So, that is the right person on whom to place the role of receiving correspondence and keeping records, so that when there are meetings he can produce the same to the CDF Committee. Therefore, the role of receiving and undertaking all correspondence on behalf of the CDF Committee should be played by the CDF Manager. Therefore, due to that contravention, we propose annulment of the particular Regulation; it contravenes the express provisions of the CDF Act, a law that was passed by this House."
}