HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1076178,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1076178/?format=api",
"text_counter": 312,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Ugunja, ODM",
"speaker_title": "Hon. Opiyo Wandayi",
"speaker": {
"id": 2960,
"legal_name": "James Opiyo Wandayi",
"slug": "james-opiyo-wandayi"
},
"content": "and still counting. This is because the last phase of it is still under implementation. This is one project that was conceived and implemented in the most opaque manner and in blatant disregard of the existing laws. If you look at the first phase of this project, it cost taxpayers Kshs4.2 billion. For those who do not know, this is the project that was supposed to enhance internet connectivity across the country. It was supposed to lay down the trunks, infrastructure, and highways for internet from Nairobi to the countryside. The first phase of this project cost taxpayers Kshs4.2 billion and it was, indeed, fully funded by the Government of Kenya. There was some attempt to undertake an open tendering process and, as a result of this, three companies were contracted. These were Huawei, a company from China and two other local companies. They were contracted to undertake that project. However, when that project entered the second phase, which cost taxpayers Kshs7.2 billion, there is no evidence how the company that was eventually contracted was ever contracted. There was no evidence how that company came on board. We have laboured through and through to find out how that company came on board. Incidentally, the same company did the first phase - that is Huawei Technologies. We were at pains to understand how a contract of Kshs7.2 billion could have been awarded to a company on the basis of nothing really. There was no open tendering, no direct procurement as we know it under the law, and there was no restricted tendering. They were citing some nebulous terminology of government-to-government tendering procurement process, which is not known in any law. Moreover, it is an issue that is still left pending. However, even more seriously, the same company was awarded another contract to implement the third phase of this project, now at a whooping Kshs9.8 billion. This is what they are calling Phase 2 expansion of the NOFBI Project. Still, we are unable to find out how that company was awarded that contract and how it was procured. Indeed, for both Phase 2 and Phase 2 expansion of this project, the company that was awarded the contract was unable to produce even a letter of award. We struggled to get the letter of award that was given to the company. We could not lay our hands on any. Nobody was willing to go on record that they are responsible for the procurement of this company. Therefore, that is just one example. However, just to conclude on that particular aspect of NOFBI Project, there was the matter of revenues that would then be generated from this project, especially Phase 1 which was completed. There was some lose agreement that was purportedly entered into between the Information, Communication and Technology Ministry and Telkom Kenya that would allow Telkom Kenya to be collecting revenue as it carries out maintenance on the infrastructure. However, the profits that would be realised would then be channeled to an escrow account, which would then help the country and the public to pay back the loans that were procured from China. As we speak, eight or so years down the line, no single cent has been deposited in the escrow account. It therefore means that the public is going to continue to carry this burden of the debt from other sources and yet, there is money that is being generated from that project. This is because we know - and there was evidence - that Telkom Kenya was charging the commercial data service providers such as Safaricom, Orange and many others. Therefore, when Telkom Kenya came before us, they were not shy. They just told us: “It is true we have been collecting money.” Indeed, they admitted that they had by that time collected up to about Kshs1.7 billion. However, they were not going to remit anything to the Government of Kenya on account of the fact that the costs they had incurred in maintaining this infrastructure was more than what they had collected. However, there was no independent authority or entity that had audited their accounts with regard to this revenue collection from the NOFBI infrastructure. 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."
}