Makueni Governor Mutula Kilonzo Junior has defended the operations of the Makueni County Fruit Development and Marketing Authority telling a committee of the Senate that it operated within the law.

In the report of the revenue and expenditure account for the county, Auditor General Nancy Gathungu had raised queries over misrepresentation of bank details and in some cases some of the signastories were not employees of the county government.

The name of the authority is defined in the enabling law as Makueni County Fruit Development Authority. 

However an audit of its accounts revealed that the Authority is registered in the name of Makueni Fruit Processing Plant.

“The County did not provide an explanation for the anomaly in the bank account name,” says the report, pointing out that the legal relationship between the two entities on one hand and between Makueni Fruit Processing Plant and the county government on the other could not be confirmed.

However, Governor Kilonzo told the County Public Accounts Committee of the Senate that the processing plant operates under the auspices of the Makueni County Fruit Development and Marketing Authority. 

The sessions was chaired by Nandi senator Samson Cherargey who is the vice chairman of the committee.

The Makueni County Fruit Development and Marketing Authority (Amendment) Act of 2017, the authority is mandated to oversee the operations of Makueni County Fruit Processing Plant from the policy perspective.

He tabled before the committee the Act and articles of association which shows the relationship of the entity.

“The articles of association shows the relationship between the two organs,” Governor Kilonzo explained, adding that a letter of dissolution of Makueni Fruit Processing Plant was signed by the CEC in charge of Agriculture on September 5, 2022.

“The Board passed a resolution to open Makueni County Fruit Development and Marketing Authority Account,” he added.

On the question of bank signatories, the audit revealed that two signatories were not employees or officials of the county executive despite the Authority’s expenditure and revenues being public resources.

But the governor rejected this insisting that the two employees were in fact employees of the Authority during the period under review.

“The two signatories could authentically transact on behalf of the authority since their employment contracts were still valid,” explained the governor.

However the contract of one of the employee lapsed and that is when he ceased being an employee of the authority.