Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 645621,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/645621/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 140,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "three months from the date of such a vote in the Senate that failed to result in the removal of the governor. Whereas Section 33(6)(a) of the County Governments Act provides that further proceedings shall not be undertaken if particulars have not be substantiated, the Senator’s Statement relates to allegations 2, 3, and 11, in relation to all the charges against the Governor. We, as a Committee, therefore, observe as follows:- Allegation 2 Relating to Charge No.1 Paragraph 201in relation to Allegation 2 reads as follows:- “Violations of Articles 201(a) and (b) of the Constitution that stipulates principles of public finance and Section 5 and 130(1)(b)(i) of the Public Finance Management Act 2012: The County Governor allowed misappropriation of county funds in spending public funds in private commercial entities. The Report of the Auditor-General on the financial operations of Murang’a County Executives for the Period 1st July, 2013 to 30th June, 2014 shows that the County Executive contributed a total of Kshs28,489,800 to Murang’a Investment Co-operative Society ( Shilingi-Kwa-shilingi ). The Society is registered under the Co-operatives Society Act, Cap 490 Section 6(3) of the laws of Kenya. The Society is an autonomous body independent of the County Executive. According to the Auditor-General’s Report, it was not clear, therefore, the circumstances under which the County Executive was funding it. This was in contravention of Section 5(1) of the PFM Act, 2012 as the Society was not a declared county corporation. On this charge, the Committee unanimously found that the allegation was not proved and was not substantiated.” Whereas Section 33(6)(a) of the County Governments Act, 2012 prohibits further proceedings in relation to any allegation that has not been substantiated, it is, however, important to note that the Senator’s request does not relate to impeachment. Therefore, it does not fall under the category of further proceedings. The request relates to recovery of public funds. The issue raised by Sen. Kembi-Gitura with regard to Allegation 2 does not seek to re-open the question of impeachment. The Statement merely seeks guidance for the Committee on Public Accounts and Investments on how Kshs28,489,800 is to be recovered, the Special Committee on Impeachment having found that there was a violation of the law in this regard. Under the Senate Standing Order No. 212(3), the mandate of the Committee on County Public Accounts and Investments is as follows:- (a) pursuant to Article 96(3) of the Constitution, to exercise oversight over national revenue allocated to county government; (b) pursuant to Article 228(6) of the Constitution, to examine the Report of the Controller of Budget on the implementation of the budgets of county governments; (c) pursuant to Article 229(7) and (8) of the Constitution,--- The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate"
}