Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 886703,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/886703/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 373,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. (Dr.) Zani",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13119,
        "legal_name": "Agnes Zani",
        "slug": "agnes-zani"
    },
    "content": "I want to talk about Clause 5 which the Chair mentioned as he was moving this Bill. It is stated in Clause 5(3) that the county executive committee shall ensure not less than 15 per cent of the county government’s allocation for development expenditure as provided under Section 107(2)(b) of the PFM Act. The important thing is that this will take place within the county assembly set up. In the county assemblies, MCAs can meet and give their views about projects to be undertaken. The question that concerns me is whether we have mechanisms to ensure that it moves from theoretical to practical. Yes, we do because mechanisms will be put in place for the relevant County Executive Committee (CEC) member to ensure that the projects are carried out. There is one Clause that I am looking for which provides that funds can be allocated for a project and reallocated to something else. That is a dangerous Clause because in county assemblies, there is politics and we could have a ganging up effect. Is it possible for MCAs to reallocate funds meant for projects in a particular ward to another ward and ensure that that money is not used where it is meant to be used? That is Clause 12(1) which states that: “Funds allocated for a project shall only be reallocated for any other purpose during the financial year with the approval of the county assembly.” I feel that this Clause is a bit loose and it needs to be tightened by having a threshold of about two-thirds of MCAs to reallocate the money to another project. Before I forget, in Clause 10, counties shall have development plans because the projects should be in line with County Integrated Development Plans (CIDPs) of a particular county. Therefore, issues of concern by county residents should be looked at. Clause 10 states that: “The projects identified under section 7 shall be included in— (a) the development plan provided for under section 126 of the Public Finance Management Act; (b) the County Fiscal Strategy Paper provided for under section 117 of the Public Finance Management Act; (c) the county budget estimates provided for under Section 13 of the Public Finance Management Act; and (d) any other plan or document provided for under law, which may be determined by the Commission as being necessary for the implementation of this Act.” It is also indicated that the county executive committee member shall align the project identification and selection processes with the county budget cycle as set out in the PFM Act. What will be the measure of equitable projects? Will it be as per the amount of money that will go to projects or will it be as per the number of people that the projects will benefit? What will be the variables? That probably will be a matter of discussion because some of the decisions will be made at the county assembly level and also by CECs within a specific county. It is important that the identification of the projects will involve members of the public across the county. Clause 7(1) states that:- “The residents of each county shall identify development projects for implementation in the respective county in accordance with this Part”."
}