LET US NOT USE THE OLD CONSTITUTION AS A CONDUIT FOR CONVEYING OUR EVIL INTENTS INTO THE NEW CONSTITUION.

Barring the court case, the budget is going to be read to parliament this week. This is besides the fact that there has been no appropriation bill under consideration, no debate on the floor of the house. Yet buried deep in the Finance Minister`s response to the brisk criticism of his unwillingness or purported inability to live up to the provisions of the new constitution is his characteristic haughtiness. Never mind that this haughtiness is coming from a presidential hopeful!

Besides his failure to present an appropriation bill to the August House he has previously never met any deadline in the presentation of annual or supplementary budgetary estimates. Even worse is the fact that there has always been a glaring “mistake” in the same estimates. Yet he has the gall to tell us that the implementation of budgetary accounting and public management reform takes time. He also mumbled something to the effect that there is need of training and the necessity of a cultural change before meeting the constitutional requirement on public finances as entailed in the new constitution.

This is hubris. First, I have examined the chapter on public finances with a fine- toothed comb and suffice to say that there is nowhere where it envisages that one can anchor his indolence in the old constitution while implementing the new constitution. Secondly, it is inexcusable for the finance minister to quote time constraints when we know too well that the Ministry of Finance is inundated with the best economists and software that can shorten the budget making exercise to just a fraction of the analogue years.

It therefore goes without saying that by choosing to present the annual appropriations at his convenience, the minister is in fact rubbishing article 221 of the new constitution which makes it explicitly clear that for the envisaged scrutiny to take place, the Cabinet Secretary (Now the Minister for Finance) has to submit to the August House estimates of the revenue and expenditure of the national government for the prospective financial year at least two months before the end of the financial year. By extension, he has flouted the entire chapter on public finances which substantially extends the legislatures` right regarding scrutiny of annual appropriations. It seems to me that the minister is unhappy that Parliament has a right to fuller and more relevant information; the kind of information that bestows upon it real strategic steering power.

His failure is thus not informed by the constraints of time but rather by the fear of the legislature exercising power over the purse. He knows as much that this power over the purse is a complete and effectual weapon with which legislators can obtain a redress of every grievance, and carry into effect every just and salutary measure. The minister fears the fact that there is an elephant in the budget detail revolving around projected government expenditure in the national as well as county governments.

In fact when parliament indicated that it will give him the leeway to flout the provisions of the chapter on public finances, he breathed a sigh of relief. He took it as the triumph of his desires over the national and county interests. He had simply managed to trick the legislature into believing that any roadblock to the presentation of the budget to the August House or the unnecessary delay in the adoption of the budget will lead to delays in their salaries, hence the urgency to have the budget adopted in the blink of an eye. Unbeknown to many such a scenario is aptly provided for in article 222(1, 2a, b and c) of the new constitution.

By abdicating a role so sacrosanct legislators have indicated their willingness to opening wide the sluice-gates of corruption in the budgeting process. This is because even though the planning and programming stage of the budgetary process does not entail handling of the actual money flow, it constitutes part of the budgetary corruption process that manifests itself in the actual payments or transfers of money at the budget execution stage. It therefore goes without saying that if the preliminary stages are poorly executed, the danger of cascading corruption opportunities become real.

But then in a sense, our inebriate parliament has been in a pro-forma session all year. Beyond a few ho-hum pieces of legislation—legislators could have taken a nine month holiday at the sun and sin resort and the country would be none the worse. Although we know that the most pressing issue facing our country is the runaway inflation and the staggering high cost of living occasioned by corruption and poor governance parliament is simply not embarrassed to set a new standard for dereliction of duty.