Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 798405,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/798405/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 287,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Madam Temporary Speaker, first, allow me to give brief facts of this case. There was a time the High Court made a ruling that the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Act is unconstitutional on the basis of separation of powers. However, the National Assembly appealed and the decision was overturned. It ruled that Members of Parliament (MPs) are not supposed to sit in CDF Committees. That finding of the High Court was upheld by the Court of Appeal. I have taken into account to ensure Members of County Assembly (MCAs) do not sit in the implementation Committees of their assemblies. However, MPs and MCAs have the power to vet. That is provided for in this law. They have the powers to vet members of those committees and the boards. They can entertain a petition to eject members from those boards or even committees. That power is constitutional. The other point in that judgment was the supremacy of legislation. Both the national Parliament and county assemblies have powers to make laws. We must always protect that right and powers to do so. I have taken into account this decision to ensure we do not offend the principle of separation of powers. That power is constitutional and cannot be taken away from the MCAs. It is their right and power to vet the people who will sit in this Committee and also oversight it. If there will be complaints regarding misuse of money, let MCAs oversight those funds. I have provided the same in this new law. An issue was raised that this law may deepen inequality. In fact, it is proposing that everyone to get an equal amount. The naysayers argue that wards have different populations and differ in poverty rates. They say this Bill ought to have taken those variance into account. My responses to them is as follows: One, that is something debatable and we can change it during Third Reading. Be that as it may, taking into account that it is only 8 per cent being provided under this law, a governor can take corrective measures using the balance which is 92 per cent. Therefore, the whole idea of 8 per cent equal is just a guarantee that, at least, every ward gets this amount. However, if the governor feels that there is a certain ward that has a very high population or with a major poverty problem, those issues can be corrected with the balance of 92 per cent. That clause is not cast in stone, though and can always be changed if this Senate feels so. Madam Temporary Speaker, there is also the argument that the aims of this Bill can be achieved through the budget. Some people have argued that it is the assemblies who pass budgets. Why can they not say: “No, we want to equalize wards and ensure that ward get projects where everyone can feel the benefits of devolution?”My response is: What percentage does an assembly have? What percentage of a budget can MCAs change? It is just 1 per cent. There has been a contention that that percentage was increased to 10 per cent. I think that was done on paper. As I speak, it is still only 1 per cent. Therefore, the budget is not a sufficient tool. 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."
}