Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 724611,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/724611/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 309,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Gikaria",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2489,
        "legal_name": "David Gikaria",
        "slug": "david-gikaria"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, I beg to move: THAT, Clause 13 of the Bill be deleted. The clause proposes to amend Sections 39 and 42 of the principal Act to allow for withdrawal of funds from the Consolidated Fund in the event Parliament has not approved the same or when the Appropriations Act, the Division of Revenue Bill and the County Allocation of Revenue Bill have not been passed by 1st of July. The proposal contravenes Articles 222 and 223 of the Constitution. If maintained as it is, the Act will seemingly be amending the Constitution, which is unconstitutional. It appears there will be a shift of power in the sense that the Executive could spend in the absence of explicit authority from Parliament. It is possible that a clause that would bar assent to the Appropriations Act on time would also not provide for the calling of a Vote on Account. This could have the effect of shutting down the Government. This clause would seem to eliminate that possibility. The clause fails to rectify an ambiguous issue that has arisen before, which is whether the authorisation to spend 50 per cent of the Budget is against the original Estimates tabled in Parliament or the Revised Estimates after Parliament has approved the Budget and the report of the Budget and Appropriations Committee before the Appropriations Act is tabled. It would be more prudent to base this on the Estimates after they have been revised by Parliament. A situation where Parliament decides to cut the Budget for a particular Vote to 40 per cent of what the National Treasury has proposed for the year, if the Vote is authorised up to 50 per cent on what the National Treasury had tabled, it would allow expenditure beyond what Parliament would have indicated."
}