Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 585459,
    "url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/585459/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 222,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Mwiru",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 107,
        "legal_name": "Alex Muthengi Mburi Mwiru",
        "slug": "alex-mwiru"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the following Motion:- THAT, this House adopts the Report of the Departmental Committee on Lands on the resettlement of squatters in Muri Farm; Mathengeta Tumutumu/Riakanau Farm; Drake Farm and Kaseku Farm, laid on the Table of the House on Thursday, 12th June 2014. This Report consists of three farms in Machakos County. Before I go on, I want to make a reservation that this has taken a little bit of time and some things have been changing as time was moving. Things in the lands sector change even overnight. I would like to move the Report as it were, but I will note any change that has taken place as I move on. I will begin with Muri Farm. The farm came into existence from a British settler, Mr. Busell, in 1945 during the World War II. The problem arose after Plum Company bought the land in 1968, which consists of three blocks and is equivalent to 2,660 acres. That was just a few years after Independence. When the Plum Company took over, they took a loan of Kshs5,000 to develop the land. Although they were unable to service the loan, they still borrowed money to put up more developments on the same farm. The loan accumulated to Kshs13,000,200. The company defaulted in repaying the loan and did not pay the workers when it was moving out. At that time, a number of villagers and squatters had already occupied the farm because most of it was not being developed. At one point, they collected Kshs3 million to see whether they could repay the loan which was owed by that company in order for them to acquire the land. Since the company had moved out of that land, it was only the squatters and the former workers who were on the ground. Whereas this money was supposed to go to the Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) which had advanced that loan, it went to people’s pockets. Therefore, they could not offset the loan. In order to recover the money, the AFC decided to go to court and get an order to evict those squatters but they stayed put and could not be evicted. Up to today, there are about 3,000 people on this land. As time went by, the squatters made developments on the farm without any hindrance. A number of public institutions are already on the farm including four primary schools, a secondary school, a District Officer’s office and a chief’s office. The squatters think that the farm belongs to them despite that loan. Several attempts have been made by the AFC to evict them, but they have been fruitless. Therefore, it was the feeling of this Committee that this matter is not supposed to be taken lightly because it borders on security. If those squatters are evicted by force, this can cause some security problems. These are three farms, but I was dealing with Muri. It is the view of the Committee that the AFC negotiates with the squatters with a view of sharing the land on a 50-50 basis so that it does not lose the whole piece of land. At the same time, the squatters should be compensated. The Committee was of the view that the AFC should recover the capital amount without loading the interest that has accrued on the loan that was borrowed by Plum Company. This will secure the right of the AFC and that of the squatters who The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}