Members of the County Assembly have today voted to reject a memorandum by H.E the Governor on the budget estimates for the 2020/2021 financial year.
The Appropriations Bill 2020 was referred back to the County Assembly, after the members passed the bill on 30th June 2020 vide memorandum by H.E the Governor.
The memorandum was committed to the budget and appropriations committee for scrutiny and recommendations
The committee in its scrutiny of the budget had earlier noted that:
1) The budget submitted by the CECM finance did not adhere to the recommendations contained in the County Fiscal Strategy Paper 2020 which is against the provisions of Section 117 of the PFM Act. In order to ensure that the 2020/2021 budget complies to the approved CFSP the budget committee proposed amendments to the submitted budget pursuant to section 131(1) of the PFM Act.
2) The budget submitted had an allocation of 81.1% to cater or recurrent expenditure and 18.9% to cater for development expenditure in total contravention of section 107 of the PFM Act which requires that a minimum of 30% to be allocated to development budget
With the recommendation from the Office of the Controller of budget, the County Assembly had to alter the budget to have it conform to the provisions of the law and the approved CFSP and reallocated some funds from recurrent votes to development.
The budget committee when preparing its report on the budget for consideration held consultative forums with various stake holders among them County Executive Committee Members and the decision to reallocate funds from recurrent budget was advised by these consultative forums.
The committee based on the observations above recommended that the County Assembly passes the Appropriation Bill 2020 a second time and rejects the Governors memorandum
In a sitting of the committee of the whole house chaired by the deputy speaker Hon. Wagura, members of the county assembly unanimously voted to reject the memorandum based on the following reasons:
1) The amendments made to the budget by the County Assembly were meant to align it to the provisions of the PFM Act and the approved CFSP 2020
2) The reservation on statutory payments was not substantiated as it is expected that the county government deducts PAYE from county staff on a monthly basis and withholding tax from service providers while making payment.
3) The county government has formed a tendency to commercialize litigation through specific law firms while the county has employed a very competent County Attorney and a fully established legal department on county payroll.
4) The CEC M Finance failed to avail information on roll over projects as requested by the committee on budget to justify the allocation of funds to roll over projects.