MPs have suspended the consideration of the Unclaimed Financial Assets (Amendment) Bill, 2023, after the proposed law’s implementing agency failed to clarify to the Committee what the amendment was intended to cure in the parent Act.
The National Assembly’s Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning expressed concerns that if left unchecked, the proposed amendment was prone to abuse and could pave way for easy transfer of proceeds of economic crimes.
Unclaimed Financial Assets Authority Acting Chief Executive Officer, Caroline Chirchir was taken to task when she appeared before the committee to explain the challenges that led the proposed amendment.
Ainamoi member of parliament Benjamin Langat, who chaired the session, sought to know from the acting CEO of UFAA, why they had proposed to give a claimant owner the power to designate the payment of a claim to another person.
“The amendment that this Bill seeks to enact has very serious ramifications. Could you explain to us the challenges that you experienced in the administration of the Fund as the Implementing Agency that has led to this amendment?”, he enquired.
If adopted the amendment would have seen an individual or entity with a rightful claim to funds or assets given the authority to direct that the payment or settlement of their claim be made to a different person or entity.
In response, Chirchir told the Committee that though they were in agreement with the proposed amendment, the Authority had not exhaustively concluded discussions with its parent ministry-The Ministry of National Treasury and Economic Planning on the Bill, and sought for more time to conclude deliberations, prompting the lawmakers to read mischief on the matter.
“Hon. Chair, I would only say that this is a government Bill. We have not had enough time to consult on the proposed amendment and we would seek to be allowed more time”, she told the Committee.
Unsatisfied with the response, Kesses legislator, Julius Rutto questioned how the Authority was not ceased of the Bill’s objective yet they were expected to implement the proposed law if enacted.
“The Authority is part of government. What do you mean when you state that this is a government Bill? We need to know who is the originator of the Bill. We shall not allow ourselves to make a law to suit the interests of others”, said Rutto.
Kitui Rural lawmaker David Mboni noted that lack of enough safeguards in the proposed amendment was a recipe for mischief and cautioned against rushed consideration of the Bill until it is clear what detriment it was meant to address.
“Hon. Chair, we need to be very cautious with this amendment. What safeguards have been put in place to ensure that this provision is not abused? What happens when the designated beneficiary passes on before filing the claim?” he asked.
Raising the same concerns, Chesumei lawmaker Paul Biego also sought to know at what point one is anticipated to designate a beneficiary and what happens in the event of the demise of the designated beneficiary.
The substantive Chairperson, Kuria Kimani who joined the meeting later told the Members that he would also seek clarification on the matter from the Sponsor of the Bill.
Langat directed that they harmonize their position with the National Treasury before appearing again before the Committee in two-week’s time.
At the same time, the Members raised issue with the fact that accrued interest earned from the unclaimed assets is not passed on to the beneficiaries upon claim.
They hinted that the Committee
would review the provisions of the
Act to provide that the beneficiaries gain part of that interest upon
claim.
