File photo of Hon. Peter Lomude, who criticized the swift passage of the Fiscal and Financial Allocation Bill 2024 on September 9, 2024 - Photo Credit: Awan Moses/Eye Radio.

A lawmaker has denounced the rapid passage of the Fiscal and Financial Allocation and Monitoring Commission Bill 2024, criticizing the process as a “play” and lacking the necessary scrutiny.

This happened during a parliamentary session on Monday when Hon. Peter Lomude raised a point of procedure, questioning how the house was passing the bill.

MP Lomude raised his concerns after Deputy Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Planning, Suzan Thomas requested that the bill be fast-tracked through all stages on the same day.

As a result, the bill was passed in its fourth and final reading with recommendations and corrections.

“I humbly urge the August House to deliberate and pass the bill entitled: “Physical and Financial Allocation and Monitoring Commission Bill 2024 in its second, third and final reading stage with all the recommendations, amendments and I request the August House to suspend regulation 106 of TNLA Conduct of Business Regulation 2011, amended 2021 and to revoke regulation 100 to pass this bill in one day,” Hon Suzan said.

Initially, Assembly Speaker Jemma Nunu Kumba opened the floor for discussion, but members quickly moved to pass the Fiscal and Financial Allocation and Monitoring Commission Bill 2024 through all stages—from second to final—without substantial debate.

The rapid passage of the bill was marked by a notable lack of deliberation, particularly on its general principles. Although some MPs raised observations during the final stage, the bill proceeded with minimal scrutiny.

“We discuss the bill at the second reading, third and final on the same day, that is their request. We don’t need to quarrel about this, let us discuss the bill at the second stage looking at the general principles: Passed? If it is passed,” announced Rt. Hon. Nunu.

“We are going to the third reading. If you are not discussing the principles, I revoke my ruling, let’s go for the third and final. The report has been passed from the second reading to the third reading and the fourth reading. Any other observation? she asked.

“Passed? Chapter Five, Misleanius provisions, any observation? Passed. So, we have passed all the chapters with all the observations and the corrections”.

The swift passage of the bill led Hon. Lomude to raise a procedural objection, questioning the House’s handling of the legislation.

Lomude argued that the bill was introduced and passed on the same day, suggesting that members should have been given more time to read and fully understand its contents.

He criticized the process, calling the rapid approval of the bill a “sham” and decrying the lack of thorough scrutiny.

“This bill is very important that we should go through it, it is not good for us. We are here, we are representing the country. The way people are passing things here is not a play,” said Hon. Lomude.

“Speaker, I suggest that you should revert this bill to the second reading stage because the way people are doing it, this is a country, it is not good to pass things the way we are doing it,” he said.

“People did not go through this report Speaker, we received this report this morning. Now people are passing something without knowing the content of what they are passing.

“I request Speaker your ruling that this bill, we should only end in the second reading stage”.

Mayen Deng Alier, another Member of Parliament also argued that the urgency of the bill is not counted on minutes but on how tense the document is discussed.

He says, the document just arrived about an hour ago and that, the members rushed simply to go out for lunch.

Mayen called for more time for scrutiny to enable the passing of the bill with enough knowledge.

“The urgency is not a matter of minutes or only one hour, it is a matter of us discussing an issue in a day. Speaker, this is a very sensitive bill and when you look at the document coming from the Committee on Finance,” said Hon. Mayen.

“There has been a case whereby we are pushed up to almost lunch time and then we are always in a hurry to do this thing so that we go for lunch. This issue is very sensitive, we must sit, and look at it,” he said.

“You cannot give a critical analysis of a document that you just got an hour or two hours ago. Besides that, the committee is so overwhelmed, they are few and they have been handling almost five to ten bills in a week, eighteen people, Speaker.

“Sometimes some of these things are cooked and brought in a hurry when they are not even well cooked and we just come and pass them. “Speaker, we should give them time. Let’s work on the second reading and then we work on the third reading next time”.

But David Nailo Mayo, a Member of the Finance and Economic Planning Committee argued saying, they are professionals in the committee and assured the house of their decent work.

“Since 2005, we are professionals in our fields of study and for the Honorable Member to denigrate the committee, is unacceptable. Let me tell you, the first person who was the chairperson of that committee was Professor Arkangelo Wanji, the late Arkangelo, Hon David said.

“The next person was Professor Paul Logali, who taught Economics, to PhD students at the University of Nairobi for twenty years. Here I am speaking Dr. David Nailo Mayo, so who is the gentlemen to denigrate us,” he said.

The bill aims to establish an independent commission to ensure transparency in the allocation of nationally collected funds to states and counties.

Last month, the parliament conducted a public hearing on the proposed Fiscal and Financial Allocation and Monitoring Commission Bill 2024 with strong calls for independence of the proposed institution.