Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 676654,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/676654/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 120,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ng’ongo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 110,
        "legal_name": "John Mbadi Ng'ong'o",
        "slug": "john-mbadi"
    },
    "content": "County assemblies do not take their time to look at the authenticity of the documents presented to them. I wish our assemblies exercised this responsibility seriously. I want to urge our county assemblies to start regarding themselves as real legislatures. They are not the defunct councils. They should start biting. Some of the responsibilities that should ordinarily be executed by our county assemblies are being executed by the Senate. This is a total letdown to devolution. I agree with many people that the enemies of devolution in this country are the county assemblies. They have a responsibility to oversee counties. They represent electorates and they should exercise their responsibility in a manner that will promote the interest of their electorates. We do not want to see county assemblies that treat the Executive with kid gloves. We are not advocating for fights in the counties, but we are advocating for objectivity. We want to hear cases where county assemblies reject appointments and budgets based on objectivity and not because their allowances have been reduced and used elsewhere. We want to see counties rejecting lower allocations for improvement of roads and provision of water and go ahead to cut foreign travels. I am one of the people who think allocation to counties should be increased. The counties can do much more in terms of provision of services with the little they have. As I wind up, I do not understand the value of Clause 13 of the Bill and I hope the Committee that will bring us the Report on this will clarify it. It states that:- “(1) For avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act may be construed as providing for or dealing with – (a) taxes; (b) imposition of charges on a public fund or the variation or repeal of any of those charges;” It looks like a clause that has been uplifted from some other legislation. I do not understand how Sub-clause 3 says:- “(3) Any expenses that may be occasioned in the implementation of this Act shall be provided from – (c) such monies as may, in the future, be provided by the National Assembly for defraying the expenses incurred in the implementation of this Act.” I do not know why the National Assembly is getting involved in provision for money to actualise this Bill when it becomes an Act. Why do we not talk about county assemblies providing that money for whatever they do? I want to imagine that this is an error. If it is not, we need to be told the purpose that this clause plays."
}