NAIROBI, Kenya Aug 12 – Members of Parliament have put the Kenya Law Reform Commission (KLRC) on the spot over millions of shillings in expenditure that was not approved by the commission, with the Auditor-General warning that the institution failed to follow budget reallocation procedures.
The National Assembly Public Investments Committee on Governance and Education questioned KLRC officials over audit queries relating to the 2018/19 to 2024/25 financial years, focusing on expenditure on commission activities and repairs and maintenance.
According to the Auditor-General’s report, KLRC spent Sh20.6 million against an approved budget of about Sh18.5 million on commission expenses, resulting in an over-expenditure of Sh2.1 million, or 11 per cent.
The commission also spent about Sh3 million against an approved budget of Sh2.6 million on repairs and maintenance, resulting in an excess expenditure of about Sh400,000, or 15 per cent.
The Auditor-General’s Director of Audit Margaret Wambui told the committee that the additional expenditure had not been subjected to the necessary approval by the commission.
“The main issue here is just about the budget reallocation, which they did not do,” Ms Wambui said.
She explained that KLRC should have sought approval for budget reallocation from the commissioners before moving funds between expenditure lines.
The matter sparked a heated exchange between committee members and KLRC officials, who maintained that the overall expenditure of the commission remained within its approved budget.
Former acting KLRC Secretary/CEO Justice Peter Muneeno Musyimi said the apparent over-expenditure arose from the reclassification of expenditure between the secretariat and commission accounts following recommendations made during the audit.
He said the commission’s total approved budget for the year was about Sh292.66 million, while its actual expenditure was approximately Sh291.99 million, meaning the institution had remained within its overall budget ceiling.
However, MPs rejected the explanation, insisting that the committee was examining the specific expenditure lines flagged by the Auditor-General and not the commission’s overall budget.
Luanda MP Dick Maungu, who chairs the committee, said the issue was whether expenditure beyond approved allocations had been incurred without proper authorisation.
“You have indicated that the entire budget was approved. That’s okay. But the auditors flagged two expenditures which they felt went beyond the approved allocations,” Mr Maungu said.
He noted that public institutions were required to adhere to approved budgets and obtain authorisation before reallocating funds.
Central Imenti MP Moses Kirima was more blunt, demanding that KLRC officials confirm whether the repairs and maintenance allocation had been exceeded.
He said the committee was not interested in lengthy explanations about accounting classifications but wanted to establish whether the approved allocation was Sh2.6 million and whether the institution spent Sh3 million.
“If there was an approved budget, how much was used? Simple as that,” Mr Kirima said.
Bomachoge Chache MP Alpha Miruka similarly insisted that the committee was dealing with specific expenditure items flagged by the Auditor-General.
He said the fact that the commission’s overall budget was not exceeded did not automatically authorise expenditure above individual vote allocations.
Narok Woman Representative Rebecca Tonkei said KLRC should have sought approval to move funds from one vote to another instead of making the changes after the expenditure had been incurred.
“If there was an approval, you should have given it to the auditors,” Ms Tonkei said.
Igembe Central MP Daniel Karitho said the issue before the committee was not whether the money had been lost but whether it had been spent without authorisation.
“There was overspending. They overspent without authorisation,” Mr Karitho said, adding that the committee needed to establish whether the funds had been properly utilised.
KLRC Head of Finance Cornelius Musangi explained that the expenditure had initially been approved but was later reclassified following advice from the Auditor-General during the audit.
He said the reclassification was linked to the use of Government Finance Statistics (GFS) codes and the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board financial statement disclosure templates.
According to Mr Musangi, the expenditure had been approved under different budget lines before the audit exercise, but the auditors advised that some of it should have been classified under commission expenses.
The Auditor-General, however, maintained that the problem was not simply accounting classification but failure by KLRC to obtain a formal budget reallocation.
Ms Wambui said the commission had indicated that it would strengthen its budget monitoring and ensure better alignment between budget classifications and financial statements.
She said the commission had failed to seek approval for the budget reallocation, leaving the audit query unresolved.
The committee also questioned why documents allegedly showing that the expenditure had subsequently been ratified by the commission were not presented to the Auditor-General during the audit.
Justice Musyimi undertook to provide the committee with minutes showing that the commission had later dealt with and ratified the expenditure.
Mr Maungu, however, questioned why such documents had not been provided to the Auditor-General during the audit process.
Central Imenti MP Moses Kirima cautioned the committee against accepting documents generated after the fact, warning that such records could potentially be backdated.
He said the committee needed to establish whether the additional funds had been used prudently and for the intended purposes.
Kasipul MP Boyd Were called for the exact expenditure to be accounted for before the committee makes a final determination.
The committee chairman said the matter would be considered further when the committee retreats to prepare its report.
Mr Maungu warned that if the committee establishes that public funds were spent improperly, the officer responsible could be surcharged.
He said the committee’s responsibility was to ensure public resources were properly accounted for and that institutions complied with the law governing public finance.
