Former National Treasury Cabinet Secretary Ukur Yatani has dismissed claims made by the Controller of Budget, Margaret Nyakang'o, that he pressured her into approving over Ksh.15 billion in irregular payments just days before the August 9th, 2022 election.
His response comes a day after the controller of budgets made the accusations. The Former National Treasury Cabinet Secretary asserts that the necessary legal provisions were followed in approving the Ksh.15.5 billion funding, which is now the subject of public debate.
Yatani says that Article 223 of the constitution allows the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury to authorize expenditures that have not been appropriated by Parliament in certain circumstances, adding that once such funds are committed, "Article 223 (2) provides that parliamentary approval is sought post-facto within a period of two months."
"This is a constitutional fact and practice. For the Controller of Budget to suggest that I pressured her to authorize "some payments" without parliamentary approval is therefore calculated malice," says Yatani.
Did you read this?
"The funds were also allocated to the construction of a modern referral hospital facility for Kenya's Defence Forces. This facility was recently opened by H.E. President Dr. William Ruto. If indeed the said Ksh15 billion was stolen, how did the President commission this hospital?" Yatani added.
The former Treasury C.S. says that the kenya kwanza administration recently made a similar demand to approve a Ksh.127.5 billion national government expenditure through a supplementary budget passed last week.
yatani goes on to say that The Ksh.127.5 billion expenditure was approved by the Controller of Budget using the exact provisions of the constitution that applied to the said Ksh.15 billion that the controller of the budget now claims was irregular
"This begs the question: What makes this approval of Ksh.15 billion 'sneaky' and that of the Ksh.127.5 billion before Parliament and mostly under the current government legitimate? Yet they both used the same constitutional path. This suggests some form of targeted malice and selective application of her discretion to shield herself from the uncertainty of regime change," Yatani added.
