Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 549807,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/549807/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 338,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "is being spent. It is an absurdity to say that when you go to audit the Inspector-General of Police, he will determine how far you can with the audit. When you go to audit the Director-General of the National Intelligence Service (NIS), he determines which areas you cannot go. That cannot be an audit even in layman’s language. In fact, it is a mockery of audit. This is a clause that has no business finding itself in this era of transparency and free flow of information. It goes on to say that the Audit Report on national security organs may be redacted to shield identities of persons as well as assets and liabilities as the case may be. What this means is that if you go to the NIS and find a fraudster there, you must shield his identity. If the fraud was committed on acquisition of an asset, you are obligated to shield the identity of that asset. We are not talking about small money. This is not pocket change. We give these organs billions and billions of shillings, some that are never accounted for. This is a country where some of the biggest frauds have been security related. You will remember the Anglo Leasing frauds which were all security related. If you say that you cannot go to audit the Spanish Ship that was procured under Anglo Leasing; you cannot go and audit the nerve centre in Karen which was procured under Anglo Leasing; you cannot check the identity of Anglo Leasing which was found to be non-existing and fraudulent. An address was given for some place in Manchester. When people went there, they found this were a laundry. We cannot go that way. We must audit ourselves in every respect. I want to urge that this clause be deleted at the Committee Stage or be recasted to make sense to audit. More bizarre is Clause 39(3) which says that all staff of the Auditor-General carrying out audit under this section shall undergo a vetting process to be carried out to the satisfaction of the security organ. This means that if Sen. Sang was an auditor and he turned up to audit the Inspector-General of Police, the Inspector-General has the right to reject him and seek to have an auditor whose appearance he likes and whose name and ethnicity he likes. We cannot go this way. How can you give an institution being audited an opportunity to vet the auditor? Why is the office of the Auditor-General constitutional and independent? Where is the independence? If I send my staff to go and audit Sen. Kiraitu Murungi and he stands by the door with a machete to say we are not auditing this or that?"
}