Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 609631,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/609631/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 62,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "AND WHEREAS the Mediation Committee in its Report proposed an increase in the allocation to the Counties by a total of Kshs3.3025 billion, as follows- (a) Shareable Revenue – Kshs1.767 billion; and, (b) Allocation for Level 5 Hospitals – Kshs1.536 billion; AND FURTHER WHEREAS at its Sitting of 3rd June, 2015, the National Assembly considered the Report of the Budget and Appropriations Committee on the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the Financial Year 2015/2016 and resolved to re-allocate various monies intended for key constitutional organs and institutions, including- (a) Capital Allocations for the Judiciary – a reduction of Kshs800 million; (b) Recurrent Allocations for the Salaries and Remuneration Commission – a reduction of Kshs200 million; (c) Allocations for the Integrated Financial Management System – a reduction of 325 million; and (d) Monies intended for monitoring and evaluation of national revenue allocated to the County Governments – a reduction of Kshs1 billion; NOTING that from their express pronouncements as broadcast on live national television and as appears in the Official Report (HANSARD) of the proceedings of the National Assembly of that day, Members of the National Assembly were clear that their decisions on the re-allocations were motivated by bad faith and by a desire for revenge or punishment of the affected constitutional organs and institutions for actions or decisions taken by those organs and institutions in accordance with the Constitution and the law; AND NOTING in particular, that in the case of the Judiciary, and despite the existence of formal and established channels to challenge decisions of the courts, reference was made to the decision of the courts in the Constituencies Development Fund matter as well as the Division of Revenue matter with aspersions being cast on the decisions delivered by the court in those matters and on the independence of the Judiciary in the preparation and delivery of its rulings and judgments generally; AND FURTHER NOTING that some of the reductions, particularly those directed at the Integrated Financial Management System and the Senate Oversight Kitty, targeted key oversight functions at both the national and county levels of Government; AND NOTING that despite the express provisions of Article 218 of the Constitution and the Advisory Opinion of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Reference No. 2 of 2013 on the processing of a Division of Revenue Bill, concern was raised by the National Assembly on the role of the Senate in the consideration and passage of a Division of Revenue Bill with erroneous arguments being made that the consideration of a Division of Revenue Bill is a function that resides solely with the National Assembly and that the Senate ought not to participate at all in the consideration and passage of such a Bill;"
}