Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 854952,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/854952/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 121,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Orengo",
    "speaker_title": "The Senate Minority Leader",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 129,
        "legal_name": "Aggrey James Orengo",
        "slug": "james-orengo"
    },
    "content": "expenditure or management of public funds will come into play. I think we will benefit from the Committee. I have not seen the report, but I think eventually, we may need to go through these amendments with a toothcomb. The speaker before me talked about memorandums of understanding (MoUs). Many governors are getting into trouble because of signing MoUs. What is the legal status of an MoU? In my view, an MoU does not go beyond implementation. There are requirements that must be undertaken under the law in respect of projects undertaken by public bodies, including the national and the county governments. Mr. Speaker, Sir, there are instruments like feasibility studies which will find a place in this Bill. However, from where you sat before, what constitutes a feasibility study is a matter of legal interpretation because one would want to determine what a feasibility study is and if a county or a Government entity should undertake it. Therefore, we need to understand what a feasibility study is. Having said all that, we need to have an environment where it is easier to do business with the Government with least red tape and bureaucracy. We are adding several sets of regulations as if the ones which are in place are not enough. Under the County Governments Act and the PFM Act, before resources can be allocated to any projects, there is a requirement that it should be a project envisaged by CIDP of every county, so that if in the middle of a period of five years you get an investor who is interested in entering into a PPP under the Act and in accordance with the regulations, the mere fact that a particular project was not planned for in the five-year development plan would render it null and void. Some counties have found themselves in criminal courts for undertaking projects not planned for in their five-year development plans. The Committee should act as urgently as possible to ensure that, that happens. I call upon Members of this House that we interrogate the PFM Act, the County Governments Act and the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and the various financial regulations. As you can see, Clause 4 seeks to insert a new section. It states as follows:- “The principal Act is amended by inserting the following new section immediately after section 3– 3A. The Provisions of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015 shall be exercised subject to the relevant provision of this Act and apply to the contracts under this Act only in the event where there is no express provision setting out the applicable procurement procedures under this Act.” There is conflict between the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and the PFM Act. We also have a third legislation that has an impact on public procurement and asset disposal. In order to make the work of the counties easier, not less accountable but user friendly, we need to have a thorough examination and bring cohesion in all these sets of legislation, so that there is no confusion in the sector, especially in matters development. I hope that these amendments, particularly as they relate to counties, will make it possible for counties to undertake projects in which they can secure private investments but with the participation of the counties in an accountable, transparent manner, in which members of the public will get satisfaction in terms of their needs and stresses. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}