GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/960500/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 960500,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/960500/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 52,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "an avenue for concluding the legislative process of the County Allocation of Revenue Bill, which is a special Bill pursuant to Article 110(2)(a)(ii) of the Constitution, has been provided in that the National Assembly may only amend or veto it by a resolution supported by at least two thirds of the Members of the National Assembly. If the National Assembly is unable to muster this threshold, then the County Allocation of Revenue Bill as passed by the Senate becomes law. Whereas the drafters of the Constitution ensured that the County Allocation of Revenue Bill is not deadlocked by a mediation process, the Constitution has not granted similar constitutional safeguard on how to unlock the Division of Revenue Bill from the shackles of a mediation process that has resulted in the defeat of the Bill. It can, therefore, be reasonably argued that the drafters of the Constitution, in providing under Article 95(4)(a) of the Constitution that the National Assembly determines the allocation of national revenue between the levels of government without a proviso of overriding Senate's decision on it, they contemplated that the Division of Revenue Bill as passed by the National Assembly is the law. As I conclude, Hon. Members, with respect to the county governments, the Constitution provides avenues through which the current delay in the enactment of the Division of Revenue Bill can be mitigated. Firstly, outside the Division of Revenue Act, county governments have recourse to the revenue generated by themselves and deposited in their respective County Revenue Funds pursuant to Article 207(1) of the Constitution. Secondly, county governments have recourse to re-appropriate and utilise revenue of the previous years, which is retained in the County Revenue Fund at the close of the preceding financial year. Thirdly, and more importantly, Article 203(2) of the Constitution guarantees county governments an equitable allocation of a minimum of 15 percent of all national revenue based on the most recent audited accounts of national revenue received as approved by the National Assembly. This amount ought to be readily available to county governments as it is already charged, allocated and granted by the Constitution. It ought not to be subjected to the bicameral legislative process between the two Houses of Parliament with the possibility of protracted disagreements, mediation and even defeat within the framework of Article 113(4) of the Constitution. As this is a direct charge on the Constitution, Article 206(2)(c) empowers the Controller of Budget to authorise the withdrawal of this amount from the Consolidated Fund. I urge the Houses to consider making appropriate amendments to the Public Finance Management Act in order to provide a comprehensive mechanism to enable county governments to access preliminary funding from the three options at their disposal. This will ensure that county governments sustain their operations in the event of any future protracted enactment of the Division of Revenue Bill. 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."
}