Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 513208,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/513208/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 209,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Murkomen",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 440,
        "legal_name": "Onesimus Kipchumba Murkomen",
        "slug": "kipchumba-murkomen"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, Section 228(5) of the Constitution says:- “The Controller shall not approve any withdrawal from a public fund unless satisfied that the withdrawal is authorized by law.” The reason I read that section is because I know very well that CRA had a right to do circulars and pamphlets as we discussed the other day and that is within their own right. However, when did we as a country convert the Appropriations Act of county assemblies to be less in legal hierarchy yet being law, to be under or below the circulars of CRA, than the law? Because where there is a contradiction between an Act of a county assembly and a circular of whatever institution, including even the President which one should be followed? The Chairperson should tell us whether we should follow the law or a circular. That is the crux of the matter. Secondly, he should tell us whether the county assemblies are not disadvantaged. Is it a coincidence that all the 47 county executives have never complained against the ceilings, but the county assemblies have complained? Does it not show that, therefore, because county executives are fully represented in IBEC meetings, they are have an undue advantage against the county assemblies? Finally, when county assemblies accept certain appropriations as they have done, including my own county under duress and undue influence---"
}