Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 880016,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/880016/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 284,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Funyula, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Wilberforce Oundo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13331,
        "legal_name": "Wilberforce Ojiambo Oundo",
        "slug": "wilberforce-ojiambo-oundo-2"
    },
    "content": "President. The report has to be approved by both the President and the Senate before a suspension can be effected. Sub article 4 provides that the suspension can be terminated by the Senate at any time. The gap in law is that there has been lack of timelines under which that can happen. We must commend the Senate for having seen the gaps, probably by learning from what happened in the Makueni County Government. The Senate has generally provided for the grounds or timelines under which the process of suspension can happen. However, there are several issues that need to be clear as we support this Bill. The grounds remain open-ended. The Bill provides for internal conflict or war. As my colleagues have said, what is happening in the North Rift could easily fall under that category. But more essentially is the issue of exceptional circumstances. The Bill talks about situations that go against the wishes, interests or the common needs of the citizens of a county and provides the threshold. Probably an amendment needs to be brought to tighten up what the common needs and interests of the citizens of a county are. Leaving that to the commission of inquiry to determine might leave room for many issues that cannot be precisely defined. That is what might have informed the President when he refused to accept the report of the commission of inquiry in the Makueni case. Probably in the fullness of time or in due course, there might be need to clearly stipulate what constitutes common needs and interests of the citizens of a county. Section 123(7) of the parent Act provided that the commission of inquiry should expeditiously inquire into the matter, report on the facts and make recommendations without giving a timeline. Many of us have seen commissions of inquiry taking all the time they could without making recommendations. The timeline now set within a particular number of months gives certainty that this will happen within a reasonable period of time. The time set for the President and the Senate gives room for us to be certain of what will happen in due course. During the period of suspension, the Bill provides that an interim county management board shall be established and run the county in the interim. However, there seems to be another lacuna that has emerged that in the event the suspension is not terminated, it is contemplated that there will be an election of the county government as provided under Clause 130. Again, there is a provision under Clause 129 that the county government shall stand dissolved after 90 days. That means that there will be a conflict in the law. If after 90 days the suspension has not been lifted, it will, therefore, mean that we head into another election. Knowing the timelines provided under the Elections Act, it means that a mechanism must be provided for where the term or mandate of the interim county management board can stand extended until after the rigours and the process of election as provided under Section 19 of the Elections Act No.24 of 2011. We must appreciate that we have come through a new system of county governments which we have not internalised. It will take time. I can assure you that people in most counties are starting to get impatient with the slow pace under which services are being delivered. One of the areas that we need to tighten, and which could be a ground for suspension, is where there is justifiable outcry because of poor performance of county governments. It is unfortunate that many times - and we must note this - our county assemblies have not been of much help in overseeing and bringing the county executive and governors to account for their actions. One of the issues that we could tighten in the amendments is to clearly redefine the role of county assemblies and provide capacity building to ensure that we have MCAs who know exactly why they are MCAs, who understand their calling and are not hecklers or scarecrows for the county speakers and county governments such that they simply hold them to ransom and nothing happens. County governments and speakers generally focus on appeasing MCAs to avoid cases of impeachment however unwarranted they might be. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. Acertified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}