Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 693281,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/693281/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 160,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Charles Njenga",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, in fact, if you look at the volume, there are many extracts from this particular document. It is only this page. I will just refer to the page without referring to the document. The Senate has power to call this document which is public. You can walk right to the Office of the Controller of Budget and get a copy. On page 216, you will see that number. I will not refer to the document again. This Senate is investigating this matter. It has the right to look for whatever information that can facilitate its investigation. This is not an Assembly document. We are just saying the balance, as disclosed by the Controller of Budget, is Kshs5,600,000. The local revenue reported in their own account is Kshs709 million. So, in simple arithmetic, the total should be about Kshs715 million. So, their explanation is not valid. If it were valid, then the two numbers should add up to Kshs846,706,900. If you go by their response that this number that was not disclosed is local revenue plus cash balances, it does not add up. No amount of argument or explanation, however ingenious it is, can add 709 and five to make 846. Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is the mischief we are saying has been persistent in the reporting by the County Treasury under the Governor in the same report. We urge that the Senate does find that in the making of this report, there was material non-disclosure which is not justifiable in the circumstances. I do not wish to dwell on that anymore because of time. Let us consider the issue of utilising. I am now looking at the particulars No. 2 of ground (a): Utilizing local revenue at source contrary to Article 207. Mr. Speaker, Sir, for good measure, let me read Article 207 to contextualise my submission. Article 207(1) of the Constitution reads:- “There shall be established a Revenue Fund for each county government, into which shall be paid all money raised or received by or on behalf of the county government, except money reasonably excluded by an Act of Parliament” Mr. Speaker, Sir, that is the material provision relevant to this ground. All funds shall be deposited in the Revenue Fund received by or on behalf of the county government, except money reasonably excluded by an Act of Parliament. This Article goes on to say:- (3) “Money shall not be withdrawn from a Revenue Fund unless the Controller of Budget has approved the withdrawal.” This is a check mechanism. It is a system infused into the Constitution deliberately. It is the Constitution that took time to provide sufficient detail as to how revenue should be treated at the county level. The first provision is that any money whether rates, licenses or whatever it is, should be deposited in the Revenue Fund. This is for good reason. It is from the Revenue Fund that there are mechanisms and systems of expending those funds. If they are not deposited into these accounts, then they are vulnerable funds. They can be misused and swindled away and they cannot be accounted for. That is the danger that we get when a county decides to collect money and use it off the pocket without depositing it into the Revenue Fund. 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."
}