Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 943765,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/943765/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 518,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. (Prof.) Kamar",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 33,
        "legal_name": "Margaret Jepkoech Kamar",
        "slug": "margaret-kamar"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, for giving me the opportunity to support the adoption of this report on the financial operations of the county executives for Financial Year 2014/2015. I start by congratulating the Committee for doing an excellent analysis of the report from the Auditor-General. The analysis has made far-reaching recommendations on various counties. It has exposed the performance of our governors in many ways. I would like to touch on a few that affect my county of Uasin Gishu. One of the observations by the Committee which bothered me was that county governments are not submitting documents to the Auditor-General for audit purposes. This affects Uasin Gishu County and a number of other counties. This raises a lot of concern because if the County Executive Committee (CEC) members or the governors are not able to substantiate any of the expenditures. It is extremely worrying that in a number of projects that have been outlined, it is very clear that in my county, documents were not submitted to the Auditor-General for verification. It begs the question: Why were documents not submitted? How can documents not be submitted if they actually exist? If they exist, then they should be submitted. It is low and begs the question on the transparency and accountability of our counties. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I saw a number of projects where the Committee rightfully observed that documents were not submitted in my county. Of course, the Committee has made their recommendations that the responsible officers should be prosecuted for breach of Section 62 of the Public Audit Act. However, the implication of documents not being submitted is more than just prosecuting an officer. It begs other questions; is it that they were not submitted because there is something that is being covered? Is it possible that the other observation which was made, that there were unsupported expenditures, is as a result of the fact that expenditures were actually done and no documents were brought forward? This is very worrying. As I said, I observed that it is not just my county but other counties also. To me, that is the first point. Why would documents not be submitted, if for sure you have spent 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."
}