HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 223692,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/223692/?format=api",
"text_counter": 180,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Maj. Madoka",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 254,
"legal_name": "Marsden Herman Madoka",
"slug": "marsden-madoka"
},
"content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Chairman of the Committee, who I travelled to Spain with, has given us a very detailed report. The Report, which has been presented, contains all the necessary details. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the main mission of our Committee's visit to Spain was to, first of all, establish whether the vessel is there. Rumours had been circulating that, in fact, there was no vessel. We established that there was a vessel. Not only did we establish it was there, but it was made according to our specifications because a marine engineer from the Kenya Navy had been attached to that construction company from the very first stage. We were shown a video footage of the various stages of construction of the vessel with our naval officer present. According to the naval officer who was seconded to the company, the vessel was, indeed, made according to our specifications. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the vessel was not only made to our specifications, but the navy commander is the one who went to launch its first sea trial. He went and broke a bottle of champagne to launch the vessel for its first sea trial. So, they were all involved. What surprised us is how the Ministry of State for Defence, even after realising it needed that vessel because of very many pirating incidents along our seas, kept mum. The Ministry said nothing and yet, it had specifically ordered that vessel. It made us wonder whether the officials of the Ministry of State for Defence were not involved in any shady deals. 1080 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES May 2, 2007 Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the first sea trial was conducted, the vessel was found to be fit. It was only the second sea trial and the fitting of the armoury that was remaining. In fact, the 10 per cent work that is remaining is the fitting of the armoury, which was to be done by another consulting firm. The construction firm had basically finished its bit. It was only the armoury that was not fitted. The construction company has been very reasonable to Kenya. They were only paid their first deposit, but because of the relationship they had with the Kenya Navy--- It is the same company that constructed seven other vessels operating in Kenya. The company had faith that the Government would pay up the remaining payments quickly. But that never happened! The company kept on asking for payments, but it was not paid. It wanted to take the matter for international arbitration, but it held back. That is because of the past relationship with the Kenya Government. It is important that the Government honours its obligation because the ship, which is there now--- In fact, other countries, especially in Asia, wanted to buy that vessel at almost double the price we were buying. It is important that the Government honours its pledge. Since we seriously need that vessel to patrol our seas, the Government should immediately enter into an agreement with the consulting company and settle what they owe. That way, we will get our vessel back. As you have heard, the vessel has already been given a name, \"Jasiri Kenya\". Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, with those few remarks, I beg to second."
}