Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 646072,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/646072/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 232,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "impeached Governor Martin Wambora, because of malpractices and corruption, that it was okay for us to go and give him 2 per cent of the devolved funds and tell him that he has been a very good governor who has managed his county well and he deserves 2 per cent, meaning that he managed his funds well? Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, we had addressed in this Senate, so many petitions which have alleged corruption and some of them have even been proven. I sit in the County Public Accounts and Investment Committee (CPAIC) and in that Committee, we have recommended prosecution of governors to the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission (EACC) based on monies that have been lost. The other day, as one of the Senators has said, we were addressing the question of funds lost in Murang’a County. We addressed Kericho County and others as well. How then can we say that it is right for the CRA to continue telling us that, indeed, they have not found that there should be a more responsible application of just that one parameter of fiscal responsibility? Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, even more so, why I am convinced that I should not support this formula is because there has been virtually no change in the way the formula was from the time we started until now. If you look at the percentages as allocated to each of the parameters, there is only one change of 1 per cent which has been taken to development. Every other parameter; from population to land mass, everything has remained constant. Is it okay for us to say that the CRA told us that these parameters are just a negotiated arrangement and they did not find anything? While we know that when we were in Mombasa, the CRA tabled to us three reports which contained details of visits that they paid to various countries across the globe and they came up with several proposals which included new areas and parameters. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, what I want to address mostly is that the Constitution itself within the transition period, allowed that every three years, these parameters become open for introduction of either new parameters or change of those percentages. It is because it was envisaged correctly that there should be and there can be fundamental changes to those parameters. That is why there is a further constitutional requirement that after another three years, similar studies and changes can be observed in the course of implementation of the Constitution that we still require the changes. I will find it hard to agree with the CRA that they have observed nothing after three years that would necessitate that in the question of addressing how our equality as a country should be, they have found nothing but a change of only 1 per cent. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, let me make my most fundamental argument. The CRA has attempted to introduce a new concept about how we should view poverty. The general concept that they have tried to sell to us, is that we should see poverty as though it is contagious or as though affluence or richness is contagious. It is as though if I as the Senator for Kiambu County - no matter how poor I am - live next to somebody who has a million dollars in his account, I automatically become rich. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, the United Nations (UN) has conducted studies globally. There is already an agreed known worldwide poverty determinant of how we conceive poverty based on an individual’s condition of living. In that concept, it does not say that a poor man ceases to be poor if he lives in Nairobi or a poor man ceases to be 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"
}