Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1274348,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1274348/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 162,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Tigania West, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) John Mutunga",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "are small-scale millers that operated in estates and areas close to residential houses. Due to this, the flour was bought by neighbours and families, most of it, therefore, was not distributed through the value chains. A multi-agency team comprising various Government agencies was put in place to oversee the programme in all stages. However, the team did not provide a report on the areas of coverage of the subsidised maize flour. Sifted maize meal under the programme was not stamped subsidy and this may have reduced the success rate of the programme because the flour could have been hoarded by unscrupulous value-chain players and sold at a higher profit at the end of the programme. The second issue that was of concern is whether the process of identification of the millers was free and fair. The Committee established that the process was free and fair because of the following. The Cereal Millers Association, the Grain Owners Association and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development informed the Committee that the programme was open to all millers that are members of the two associations that were willing to participate in this programme. Contracts were signed between the millers and the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Cooperatives then. The Grain Mill Owners Association informed the Committee that the members of this association signed the contract for supply of sifted maize flour a day after their counterparts in the Cereal Millers Association. Scrutiny of the contract, however, show that the millers from both associations began signing the contracts on 20th of July. On the other hand, the contracts submitted by the Ministry in their presentation was different from the contracts signed by the millers. We established that the contracts submitted by the Ministry were similar to the one presented to the Committee by the Grain Mill Owners Association while the contract that was signed by the millers was similar to the one presented to the Committee by the Office of the Attorney-General and the Cereal Millers Association. So, we had two contracts. On the third issue, the presentations made by the Grain Mill Owners Association was genuine and had no underlying issues hence the value for money. The presentation made by the Cereal Millers Association had a number of underlying issues and, therefore, no value for money on their part due to the following reasons. One of the reasons is that the figures of the maize supply into the programme provided by Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development and the Cereal Millers Association and the Grain Mill Owners Association were all different. From the Ministry, the records show that Ksh3.5 billion was paid to the maize millers under Article 223 of the Constitution for the programme. In the meetings, the Cereal Mill Association submitted that they had been paid Ksh1,905,845,377.70 while the Grain Mill Owners Association stated that they were paid Ksh841,784,292.89 which makes a total of Ksh2,747,627,669.96 and not Ksh3.5 billion as stated. On the Ksh4 billion that was paid to the maize millers, Ksh500 million was paid to members of the Cereal Millers Association to cater for the interest accrued from the debt owed to the millers for the maize flour subsidy programme for the Financial Year 2017/2018. They had refused to sign the contract for this particular programme because they had not paid the interest accrued in debt. Neither the Ministry nor the Cereal Millers Association provided a proper explanation on how the money was distributed to the millers. Despite the undertaking to submit documentation on the same, none has been received by the Committee at the point of writing the Report. The amount of money owed to Cereal Millers Association submitted to the Committee was different from the amount of money that they were demanding from the Ministry to pay as seen from the letters that were attached to their presentations. Cereal Millers Association explained that the figures submitted to the Committee had gone up because two other millers joined the programme later. They however, did not submit details of the two millers. The fifth issue that we established was that during the consideration of the Supplementary Estimates No.1 of the Financial Year 2022/2023, the Committee established 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."
}