Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 653988,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/653988/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 360,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ababu",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 108,
        "legal_name": "Ababu Tawfiq Pius Namwamba",
        "slug": "ababu-namwamba"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. It has always been my prayer that the Senate be given sufficient capacity to play a more robust oversight role. This is because of the challenges we are facing with accountability in county government structures across the country. I will, therefore, maintain that we must come up with a framework that can enable the Senate, as an institution and Senators as representatives of the people, to play their oversight role more effectively. I wish this House was making a commitment to facilitate the Senate in terms of resources and invest in taking a fresh look at the regulations. This will make them more effective and in line with the constitutional spirit of oversight and end any lingering sibling rivalry between the two Chambers of Parliament. I believe that a candle lighting another candle does not, in any way, lessen its light. A strong Senate can only be good for devolution. Capacitated and well resourced Senators can only be good for greater accountability in the counties. I am having serious difficulty with this amendment. My learned colleague, Hon. Member for Luanda, is a man I hold in great regard. We were together at Parklands Law School many years ago. He is proposing that we move this money initially meant for oversight duties for Senators to the Vote of General Administration, Planning and Support Services of the PSC. My conscience is struggling to understand the use for the money under that Vote. Are we just moving money because we must take it away from the Senate? Or are we moving this money because we have applied some thought to confirm what exactly this money is going to do under that Vote? I have not heard any budgetary explanation as to how the money will be utilised by the PSC. If, indeed, the challenge is the absence of regulations and rules or Senators should not oversee in an individual capacity, but rather in an institutional capacity, why can we not then move this money to Committees of the Senate? If this money cannot be given to Senators to be used as initially imagined or intended, then the money will be available for Committees of the Senate to undertake their oversight mandate more effectively. Providing this money to a General Administration, Planning and Support Services Vote without providing any details as to how it will be used is a matter I find difficult to support. Therefore, I oppose this amendment. I move that if it is a question of regulations, this Vote can still be approved as proposed. This means that we provide resources to the Senators for oversight while we expedite the improvement of the regulations, so that this money remains available to the Senate for oversight. Honourable colleagues, let us not downplay the critical role the Senate has in oversight and in helping us to make sure that resources we are sending to counties are effectively used. I find it difficult to support this amendment and I oppose it."
}