HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1459299,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1459299/?format=api",
"text_counter": 273,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Mungatana, MGH",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "of them are in our league and some are even still holding public offices to date. They knew that if this report became public, then their political careers would be destroyed and they would lose some of their major properties. Why? Mr. Ndung’u recommended two very important rules as a general way to solve this problem. Mr. Ndung’u said that we should revoke these titles where the public interest outweighs the private interest of that individual. That means, if, for example, that individual or corporation grabbed that land, but has not invested anything much and it was supposed to be, maybe, a place for a school, a stadium or a hospital, he recommended where the public interest outweighs the private development, then the title should be revoked immediately and that person loses that parcel of land. If someone took very huge parcels of land that a college was supposed to be built and put up his own house, a few animals there and is doing some agriculture, then the public interest in that land still outweighs the private development, then that land revert to the State. This is one rule that Mr. Ndung’u recommended in his report. The second rule is that “if the private development of the irregularly obtained land outweighs the public interest, then he should pay the market value for that property that he irregularly allocated to himself or regularly obtained.” This means, that if that individual, for example, was allocated a piece of land at almost absolutely paying nothing and it was set aside for a college, and that college was never developed, instead he irregularly acquired it, set up a beautiful hospital, that is now treating the public and the cost-benefit analysis of destroying that hospital as opposed to surrendering that plot of land is too high, then in that case, the private development outweighs public interest. He is supposed to pay to the county government or in those days to the municipality the fair value of that land. It was not easy to implement the recommendations of Mr. Ndung’u. That is why that report has remained inside and unimplemented to date. So many years ago from 2004, we have lived through all these. It is now 20 years. He completed his report in June, 2004. It has remained unimplemented because of all the repercussions it would have. Today, there is some form of semblance of having something being done. Although this land Amendment Bill that we are debating today is not dealing with the Ndung’u Report, it says that going forward; we will not have public land available for alienation. On the other hand, anytime there is a development, for example, land adjudication, the private land that will be given or alienated to the people, be it for the cemetery, the stadium or places of worship, it will be issued with a title deed and nobody can alienate that piece of land. It may not be an implementation of the Ndung’u Report, but it is some step forward. It is not calling for title revocation as the Ndung’u Report had recommended in a very radical way. However, it is saying that going forward, all developments that we will have, must have areas that are specifically set aside for the public utility. We are now in an age where people are always talking about living a quality life and in an environment that is healthy even for our population. If an estate is being created or a development is being done, the open spaces will be registered and a title deed issued so that those people, who are living in those areas through this Land Amendment Act, will The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only.A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and Audio Services,Senate."
}