Post by Ed on Mar 1, 2006 23:03:38 GMT 3
Raila. Here are the facts:
FACT: There are 4 million squatters in Kenya - who decides that one case is
more deserving than the other? Who decided that Koigi's family warranted the
30 acres and not the other families in Subukia? Was it politically expedient
for Moi to silence his harsh critic by allocating his family land? Was Koigi
complicit in accepting the land? Was Lawyer Peter Ndung'u selective in
naming certain individuals and not others in his Report? Was he complicit in
the government's desire to 'teach certain individuals a political lesson? Is
it corruption for the President to allocate land without following due
process?
I agree that the issue of land is very complex and it has not passed my
attention that Kibaki issued land to certain communities (e.g. Ogiek) during
the just concluded referendum and stated that it was his prerogative to do
so. If this is the case, then did Moi and Kenyatta have similar
prerogatives? And if they did exercise that prerogative, is it fair for
Kibaki and his cohorts to question those deals?
Let me turn my attention to Mollases. I think that your questions need
answering and the injunction obtained by Spectre International attempts to
force the government to make public the findings of the investigations
carried out by the National Audit Office which answered all these questions.
Here are the facts:
FACT: The land that Mollases plant is sitting on was nyakuad by the
powers-be in order to build the plant in the first place.
FACT: The Mollases plant turned into a white elephant and the powers-be
abandoned it.
FACT: The Mollases plant was put out to tender and the public were invited
to bid.
FACT: Spectre International won the tender by bidding Kshs570 million and
commenced revitalising the plant.
FACT: Issues were raised about the land. The political hawks at the time
decided that the sale of the plant did not imply the sale of the land.
FACT: Spectre International paid a certain amount (I believe that its in the
region of Kshs 10-37million) for the land in order to settle the matter once
and for all.
FACT: The amount paid by Spectre International for the land was determined
to be the correct value at the time and the matter was laid to rest.
FACT: There are no monies owing from Spectre International to the
government. The bid monies (Ksh570 million) was paid in full and the land
charge settled in full.
It is therefore politically dishonest for the government and some in our
midst to shout out from the rooftops claiming that Raila corruptly obtained
the Mollases land without publishing the facts. It is also politically
dishonest for the government to target Raila whilst knowing that the
Mollases land was nyakuad from its true owners by the government in which
Kibaki was a serving senior minister. The Mollases land has issues but those
issues precede Raila/ Spectre's takeover of Mollases. If investigations are
to be carried out then they ought to go right back to the early days of the
Mollases plant. If we are unhappy about the rates paid by Spectre
International then we can go hang. Land rates appreciate over time. What
would you think if you were sold a house today at USD10,000 only for the
seller to come back in 10 years time claiming that the house value has gone
up to USD25,000 and you therefore owe him some money?
FACT: There are 4 million squatters in Kenya - who decides that one case is
more deserving than the other? Who decided that Koigi's family warranted the
30 acres and not the other families in Subukia? Was it politically expedient
for Moi to silence his harsh critic by allocating his family land? Was Koigi
complicit in accepting the land? Was Lawyer Peter Ndung'u selective in
naming certain individuals and not others in his Report? Was he complicit in
the government's desire to 'teach certain individuals a political lesson? Is
it corruption for the President to allocate land without following due
process?
I agree that the issue of land is very complex and it has not passed my
attention that Kibaki issued land to certain communities (e.g. Ogiek) during
the just concluded referendum and stated that it was his prerogative to do
so. If this is the case, then did Moi and Kenyatta have similar
prerogatives? And if they did exercise that prerogative, is it fair for
Kibaki and his cohorts to question those deals?
Let me turn my attention to Mollases. I think that your questions need
answering and the injunction obtained by Spectre International attempts to
force the government to make public the findings of the investigations
carried out by the National Audit Office which answered all these questions.
Here are the facts:
FACT: The land that Mollases plant is sitting on was nyakuad by the
powers-be in order to build the plant in the first place.
FACT: The Mollases plant turned into a white elephant and the powers-be
abandoned it.
FACT: The Mollases plant was put out to tender and the public were invited
to bid.
FACT: Spectre International won the tender by bidding Kshs570 million and
commenced revitalising the plant.
FACT: Issues were raised about the land. The political hawks at the time
decided that the sale of the plant did not imply the sale of the land.
FACT: Spectre International paid a certain amount (I believe that its in the
region of Kshs 10-37million) for the land in order to settle the matter once
and for all.
FACT: The amount paid by Spectre International for the land was determined
to be the correct value at the time and the matter was laid to rest.
FACT: There are no monies owing from Spectre International to the
government. The bid monies (Ksh570 million) was paid in full and the land
charge settled in full.
It is therefore politically dishonest for the government and some in our
midst to shout out from the rooftops claiming that Raila corruptly obtained
the Mollases land without publishing the facts. It is also politically
dishonest for the government to target Raila whilst knowing that the
Mollases land was nyakuad from its true owners by the government in which
Kibaki was a serving senior minister. The Mollases land has issues but those
issues precede Raila/ Spectre's takeover of Mollases. If investigations are
to be carried out then they ought to go right back to the early days of the
Mollases plant. If we are unhappy about the rates paid by Spectre
International then we can go hang. Land rates appreciate over time. What
would you think if you were sold a house today at USD10,000 only for the
seller to come back in 10 years time claiming that the house value has gone
up to USD25,000 and you therefore owe him some money?