Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 593773,
    "url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/593773/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 351,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ganya",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 18,
        "legal_name": "Francis Chachu Ganya",
        "slug": "francis-ganya"
    },
    "content": "We felt that this was a good amendment which enables investors to have more say and confidence in the industry. Under Clause 16, the strategic mineral issue was revisited. We felt that this issue was already well canvassed under Clause 7, and on that ground we rejected it just to ensure there is no repetition. Clause 20(4) is on fair compensation. It was basically about the issue of exercise of power by the Director of Mines. The issue was when to use these powers in terms of when they are doing reconnaissance or when they are trying to prospect for minerals, property or when land belonging to Kenyans is destroyed. We felt that it was appropriate for these people to have fair, prompt and full compensation. This is what was proposed by the Senate and we agreed with it as we felt it added value to what was there before in the Bill. Clause 21 is still on fair compensation but this one is in reference to the Director of Geological Survey. It is to ensure that in exercise of their work or powers there is minimal damage done to land and property. When damage is done to land or property of Kenyans, it will ensure that there is prompt and full compensation to them. We felt that this amendment from the Senate was good and we agreed with it. Clause 30 is about the composition of Mineral Rights Board. The Senate proposes that we should have a representative from the Council of Governors (CoG) on this Board. We strongly felt that even though minerals are largely a function of the national Government, it is critical to ensure that county governments are fully brought on board. This is because mining is not done in space. It is done on county land, which is largely community or public land. We felt having a representative from the CoG on this Board will ensure the interests of the counties are well safeguarded. Because of this we agreed with the Senate to have a representative from the CoG on this Board. Clause 33(7) and (8) are about feedback on status of applications for large scale mining. The amendment by the Senate deletes the provision for review of the application rejected by the CS. It states that once the CS rejects an application, somebody has to go to the High Court. We felt that it is not necessary. There is need for an internal mechanism to review that decision made by the CS instead of rushing to the High Court. We feel that before one goes to court, which can be time consuming and expensive, we need to have an internal mechanism to review a decision that is made by the CS, and that is not desirable. On that ground we rejected this amendment by the Senate. Clause 34 that was amended by the Senate is on mineral rights application. The Senate is very silent on the provisions regarding objections to applications for licences for reconnaissance and prospecting as well. We also felt that there was need for us to ensure protection of community rights. While they wanted to do away with the provision in particular for prospecting, they did not say what is going to happen in case of damage, or any problem that would result from that particular activity. We felt that it was essential for us to protect community land; on this ground we rejected that amendment from the Senate. Clause 37 is on mineral rights on private land. The amendment from the Senate is specifically on issues of prospecting licences. It argues that they must be obtained without the consent of the owners, or the private land owners. The Constitution provides for this, and we felt that it is important that the consent of private owners is critical before the Government offers prospecting licences. On this ground we rejected it and we argued that if the State wants to have that piece of land, there are other mechanisms that the Government can use, including 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."
}