Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 701377,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/701377/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 219,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Abdirahman",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 161,
        "legal_name": "Abdirahman Ali Hassan",
        "slug": "abdirahman-ali-hassan"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to contribute to this Motion. After listening to Sen. (Prof.) Lesan and Sen. Murkomen, I thought of not supporting it, because of the expressions they made with regard to performance in the counties or the failure by the Transition Authority (TA) to effectively transfer all functions that are designated for counties, as well as the passive nature of the successor to the TA, which is the Intergovernmental Relations Committee. Devolution is still at its embryonic stages for the fourth year running. A number of things have not fallen into place. Management of resources in counties, planning and prioritizing projects is still an issue. Public participation in identifying what the issues are in the counties is another factor. We thought devolution would help our local people in terms of meeting their demands. However, it is yet to realise its full results. I say so because at some point, there was a Bill sponsored by Sen. Sang on the County Development Boards. It failed to take off because of the interference of courts in this country. I am not saying that what is in the Constitution justifiably should not be given to counties. However, we should have looked at performance in the counties with regard to resource management. We should also have looked at the impact of the resources that we are channeling to counties. We do not have an elaborate plan, for instance, a mid-term review. By last year we should have known whether the billions we have channeled have given us value for monies that were spent in counties. We are going into the fifth year; the final lap. We should have reviewed the current Budget that is being spent by counties on recurrent or development projects. As the national Government, Members of the Senate and communities that are supported through these funds, we should rate them and get some consensus on how best these things should have been carried out. From an overall position, there is an indication that a number of our counties have not performed effectively, and I am deeply concerned. We may want to transfer functions, but are they being handled as expected? The issue of service delivery has not been brought forward. Many county executives assume that putting up a physical structure is as good as service delivery. Service delivery is quite different from putting up a hospital, a maternity wing or a dispensary. Putting up a classroom for an Early Child Development (ECD) class may not necessarily translate into improved enrollment or good performance. Therefore, putting up a physical structure is not the same as service delivery. A number of Senators, including me, have moved around several counties. When we see very huge structures put up by governors, we always imagine that they have done very well. We do not look at the actual ingredients with regard to service delivery. 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"
}