Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 764545,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/764545/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 241,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "November 9, 2017 SENATE DEBATES 24 Sen. Mutula Kilonzo Jnr.",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, just to answer Sen. Murkomen, we must have fidelity to this law, the Constitution and fear God. We cannot discuss the conduct of an independent institution like a county assembly. That is as clear as a, b, c. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wanted to raise a point of order before because I am told that the committee that we approved yesterday was to table a report. I had sought to know whether the declaration by the Cabinet Secretary (CS) in charge of Finance and National Treasury, Mr. Henry Rotich, is legal to the extent that equitable share of revenue has not been remitted to counties because of the amendments that we seek to have in this Bill. The Senate must pronounce itself and since the Senate Majority Leader has not pronounced himself, I want to say that Mr. Henry Rotich has violated the Constitution. Article 219 is very clear and it states that: “A county’s share of revenue raised by the national government shall be transferred to the county without undue delay and without deduction, except when the transfer has been stopped under Article 225.” Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the principal object of this Bill is to amend the County Allocation of Revenue Bill No.23 of 2017 to replace the Third Schedule of the Bill on conditional grants to county allocations. While we agree that there might be discrepancies in schedules and particularly on conditional grants, we must tell the national Government, through the CS Treasury, that counties cannot wallow while they sit in their offices here in Nairobi to amend schedules on conditional grants, which they have engaged with other partners on their own without the involvement of the Senate. While I support this, this Senate must make a resolution that in future we will not entertain the violation of the Constitution on shareable revenue because that is something that we passed in the Division of Revenue Bill and this House has very little to do with conditional grants. As far as I am concerned, we do not audit conditional grants. What we do here is nothing less than being a conveyer belt for national Government. Those reports do not come to us. We have a role in Article 96 to protect counties and their governments. Shareable revenue should not be tied to conditional grants by the national Government. Otherwise, what will happen in the future is that when we refuse to pass conditional grants like we did with the conditional grants on building of capacities of counties, the national Government will refuse to transfer funds and that is illegal. That is what we call impunity. The brother and sister, and the father and mother of impunity is violating the Constitution. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this with all those caveats and I expect the Senate Majority Leader to stand up and be counted as the leader of his House and condemn actions that violate our role. These are actions that might be construed to mean that conditional grants are for some reason superior to the shareable revenue. I thank you."
}