Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 653975,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/653975/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 347,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Omulele",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2145,
        "legal_name": "Christopher Omulele",
        "slug": "christopher-omulele"
    },
    "content": "roles of the National Assembly and the Senate is because when we allocate funds, we must look at what the Constitution envisages that these Houses should do. Article 95 sets out that the National Assembly has an oversight role over all the revenues that are set out as national revenues. The Senate is only mandated under Article 96(3) to oversee such funds that have been drawn out of the national revenues and have been allocated to the county governments. When you look at the law as it is, the National Assembly, where we sit today, has a role to oversee the whole amount that is considered to be national revenue. When you look at the First Supplementary Estimates as presented to this House, there is an item that has been set out as an amount that has been allocated specifically for the Senate to perform its role as set out in Article 96(3) and yet, the genesis of Article 96(3) is actually founded on Article 95(4) which gives the National Assembly the role to oversee national revenues. So, my contention is this: If we are allocating money to the Senate to perform its oversight role as provided for under Article 96(3), then that money can only be allocated if a similar amount--- In fact, if we had Kshs100 considering the Constitution provides that the funds that go to the county governments would be a minimum of 15 per cent of the national revenues-- - Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, if we were to allocate even Kshs100 to the Senate to perform its role under Article 96 (3), then we would have to provide Kshs85 to the National Assembly to perform that role as envisaged under the Constitution. So, if we proceed to provide those funds as has been suggested under the Supplementary Estimates Budget, we shall be offending the Constitution and going against the spirit of the Constitution, against discrimination. We will be allocating funds unconstitutionally to the Senate. I have no problem with the Senate and allocation of funds for any function. However, if we are going to allocate any funds, let us allocate funds according to the Constitution. This Constitution, therefore, informs my amendments to this Supplementary Estimates Budget so that we take those funds away today, but we can go back and negotiate and say: “If we are going to allocate funds for oversight roles as provided for in the Constitution, let us do it according to the Constitution.” We want every Member who is elected to Parliament - either to the Senate or the National Assembly - to have a fund to perform that oversight role. But we cannot sit here and allocate a section of Parliament funds to do a role that all of us are doing and purport to be obeying the Constitution. That is why I am not taking away the money entirely. I am proposing that those funds should be removed from the Senators and reallocated to the Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) so that they can be allocated to our committees, both in the Senate and the National Assembly. It can help all of us in the two Houses to perform that oversight role through the committees as envisaged in the Constitution. That is why I am proposing that we move those funds from the votes that have been set out and place them in the hands of our PSC so that those funds can be generally used for purposes of oversight. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, you may be aware that there are a lot of deficits in this House. We have lifts that are not even working. The gym does not have equipment. Sometimes, Members of Parliament (MPs) are not paid their mileage and allowances on time. This reallocation to PSC is the proper thing to do. I beg to move and request my brother, Hon. Ochanda, to second."
}