Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 552261,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/552261/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 176,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Sakaja",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13131,
        "legal_name": "Johnson Arthur Sakaja",
        "slug": "johnson-arthur-sakaja"
    },
    "content": "Clause 19 is sort of trying to make a shortcut within the budget process because what it was providing for was that the budget estimates of the Office of the AG shall be forwarded to the National Treasury for review and subsequent onward transmission to the National Assembly. The Senate felt that we need to remove the word “review”. The Constitution only provides that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) are the bodies that can send their budgets to the National Assembly directly. By removing provisions for review by National Treasury, it is tantamount to giving them an express route to the National Assembly in terms of the budget which is almost like amending the provisions within the Constitution. We understand the fears that may be there, that Treasury might be trying to allocate little money to the Office of the Auditor-General (AG) and that the review should not be done by a client because the Treasury is also a client of the AG but ultimately, the National Assembly has the final say on budget estimates and all appropriations done by the National Assembly. We feel that the review must be there because Treasury has a bird’s eye view over the economy. They can tell the budget ceilings which we should abide by and the Budget and Appropriations Committee and the National Assembly then can do the necessary. On Clause 24, there is creation of the Audit Advisory Board. In this Board which is supposed to advise the AG on issues of recruitment, budget estimates and to review Organisational issues, the provision by the Senate is to make the AG the chairman of the Audit Advisory Board that is advising him. I think it does not make sense for him to chair a Board that advises him. If anything, he should not be a member of that Board and if he is, he could be a secretary. That is something that we need to be able to discuss with the Senate to make it clear. This takes us to the provisions in Clause 26 where we agreed with the Senate. If you look at what was in the Bill, it was not clear that the work of the The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}