Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1277806,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1277806/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 171,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Tigania West, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) John K. Mutunga",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The other issue that was not clear is the contract itself. We were presented with two contracts. The Ministry, indeed, gave us a contract which was not signed by the millers. The contract that was signed by the millers was different. We also found out that there were different amounts of unga produced and purportedly distributed. We found a disclaimer in the contract that cleared the maize millers from any blame if the packets of two-kilogrammes maize flour were not found in the market selling at Ksh100. We also found a few other important issues. We discovered that the number of members of the Cereal Millers Association kept changing. We found some discrepancies in the fact that this particular maize meal was neither marked “Ksh100” nor was it marked “Subsidy”. If it had been marked “Subsidy”, it would have been easy for Kenyans to identify it in the market and buy it. It would also have prevented anyone from selling the product at the price at that point in time. According to the Report, and what came out on the Floor is that the Ministry’s payment records were basically different from those of the associations that made their presentations. This made the Committee think of going the inquiry way. The inquiry process was guided by three objectives. Before we go to the objectives, Hon. Temporary Speaker, the questions we asked these institutions before they made presentations were that we needed to identify whether the process of identification of the suppliers of the maize flour was free and fair. We also needed to know the context and contents of the contracts themselves, and that is why we found some of those anomalies. The other issue we wanted to know was whether the awarding process was free and fair and how it was done. We were also interested to know when they were contracted, how the contracting was done and how the notification and authorisation were done. In addition, we also wanted to know the amount paid and the amount claimed as unpaid, the distribution process to the retailers and finally to the consumers. All those who were involved responded including the National Treasury in terms of the payments they made. The National Treasury released Ksh4 billion to pay for the subsidy using Article 223 of the Constitution. Hon. Temporary Speaker, the inquiry majored on three questions on which I want to centre my reply on. One of them is whether the initiative met the objectives. The second one is whether the identification was free and fair, and finally, did we get value for money. Those three questions were answered by different institutions. Our synthesis of the various documents and reports that we received, and their examination made the Committee decide to clear one of the associations as having, at least, met the minimum requirements and, therefore, it could be paid its dues. This is the Grain Millers Owners Association. In terms of determining whether the process met the objectives, in as far as their submissions are concerned, they clearly and carefully documented their process. They were also cleared by the multi-agency team that was put together under the management of the National Cereals and Produce Board. The reports of the multi-agency team corroborate very well with their report as millers. They also sold most of the two-kilogramme packet of unga from the milling plant premises. Most of them are situated near the residential areas. On the issue of the process, in as far as this particular association is concerned, they were not preferred earlier. Later they were consulted and contracted through their leadership and they were given the contracts which they signed. Still on the process, the contracts they signed were examined and found to be the same as those of the other associations. So, there was fairness. On the issue of value for money, that is whether the money we spent was well utilised, the quantities of maize flour that they produced as a product that went into the milling plant vis-a-vis the quantities of the packets from the packets of the maize flour that they produced 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."
}