Lesson for the Big Four Housing Agenda in Kenya

Fiona Okadia
Post Date: 24 January 2019

Housing as an aspect of shelter is considered one of the basic needs. It is also the highest expenditure of a household’s total income. Globally, different governments fund housing projects with the  aim of transforming areas that have extreme poverty levels. This is informed by the fact that poor areas are highly characterized by poor housing infrastructures and most policies tend to favor high income earners.

Housing policy is seen as a government intervention in the housing market aimed at  eradicating homelessness, improving  the quality of the housing, and providing affordable housing. a. For housing policies to work effectively, certain regulatory bodies need to be  in place. In Kenya, National Housing Corporation (NHC) is such a body that exists to efficiently provide and facilitate access to innovative decent housing solutions.  Housing policies should not only to be examined from a perspective of expenditure from the governments’ side, but also as a source of revenue. For example  Kenya earns about 10% from rental tax annually.

This particular paper by David J. Reiss focused on United States and some of its housing policies that exist/existed. In order to extract the main reasons as to why law makers come up with housing policies, David J. Reiss took the approach of coming up with first principle policies and subordinate policies as he examined the opinions on housing policies. In the United States housing voucher programme, participants pay 30% of their monthly income towards rent, and the rest is paid to the landlord by the housing authority that manages the household’s voucher. Other programs include    supportive housing for the elderly and the federal housing administration that provides an adequate home financing system through insurance of mortgage loans that are favorable to the citizens.

 


Utilizing The Public Finance Management Act 2012 in tackling Public entities receiving disclaimer of opinion

Collins Oyoo
Post Date: 24 January 2019

The Office of the Auditor General draws its mandate from the constitution of Kenya chapter 12, part 6, Article 229 which establishes the office of the Auditor General. While chapter 15 Article 248, section 3 and Article 249, Section 2 (a) and (b) provides for the independence of the office of the Auditor General. One of the major functions of the OAG is to audit and report on the accounts of an entity that is funded from public funds. The office issues three types of opinion in regards to the financial statements of an entity namely unqualified, qualified and adverse opinion. When the auditor general awards an unqualified opinion, it means that an entity’s financial statements are fairly and appropriately presented without exceptions and in compliance with accounting standards. A qualified opinion means that the auditor general found material errors in an entity’s financial statements though the errors were not pervasive meaning the errors were not spread to other components of the financial statements. An adverse opinion indicates that the auditor general found material errors in an entity’s financial statements which were pervasive meaning the errors spread to most if not all components of the financial statements.

There are cases where an entity fails to support the auditor general’s work by either withholding documents or issuing limited information thereby preventing the auditor general from awarding an opinion and this the auditor general issues a disclaimer of opinion. This article focuses on the consequences of a public entity receiving a disclaimer of opinion from the OAG in reference to the Public Finance Management Act 2012 thereby preventing any or further pilferage of public funds. According to the OAG reports several ministries such as the Ministry of Devolution and Planning, various State entities such as the National Youth Service and various donor funded projects have received a disclaimer of opinion. The Public Finance Management Act 2012, Section 94 (1) (d) elaborates that an entity, funded by public funds that has received a disclaimer of opinion is in serious material breach of the act and may trigger Section (97) 1.

Having considered all relevant information, the Cabinet Secretary National Treasury under section (97) 1 may decide to stop the transfer of funds to a state organ or public entity in accordance with article 225 (3) of the constitution. The Cabinet Secretary shall stop the payment and inform the controller of budget in respect of:


Page 1 of 1 |