HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 240434,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/240434/?format=api",
"text_counter": 195,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Muturi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 215,
"legal_name": "Justin Bedan Njoka Muturi",
"slug": "justin-muturi"
},
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, as you know, the rules of this House stipulate that I can go on talking until next week. These are Committee reports. I am just about to conclude. However, just before I do that, it is important that I point out this issue; that Section 33 - and anybody is at liberty to tell us about their own understanding of it--- Therefore, rather than interrupt me by saying that I have turned myself into a court of law, it is important that everyone gives it his own reflection and meaning. In consultation with the Board, the Minister makes regulations. So, if the Minister decides to make regulations, he has no option but to consult with the Board. When he makes those regulations, he shall, and it is mandatory, that abides by the regulations that control the production, manufacturing, marketing, importation or exportation of sugar and its by-products. Therefore, the point I am trying to bring out is this; because we may not all be able to read through the evidence that is in the report, I want to bring out the issue that we engaged the Minister, as a Committee, and he gave us his interpretation of Section 33. The Committee found different meaning and understanding regarding the role of the Minister. The Sugar Board as we have seen in Section 27 of the same Act, is the one that is vested with the power to control and regulate. It is therefore, under Section 27, that one understands why under Section 33, the Minister should not decide to make any regulations which have the effect of controlling and regulating, while he is enjoined to consult with the Board. The point I am trying to make is; the evidence we have shows that he says he consulted the Board, when the Board says clearly that it was not consulted. In fact, when the Board finished the meeting which would have formed what it considered as its consultations with the Minister, which was to be communicated to the extent that the Board was served with a notice that said that it had been consulted, the Minister did not act in accordance with the law. Therefore, before I move on to the recommendations, I must say that the Committee also took evidence from the Chief Executive, Mr. Otieno. The Chief Executive of the Board appeared 2448 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES July 27, 2006 before the Committee on three occasions. The Committee observed that he was deliberately giving conflicting evidence, and on several instances attempted to mislead the Committee. Later in the evidence, the Board Chairman and the Company Secretary confirmed this misconduct in their evidence to the Committee. Indeed, the Committee, pursuant to Section 16 of the National Assembly Powers and Privileges Act, Cap 6. of the Laws of Kenya, decided to examine the Chief Executive on oath. He informed the Committee of the meetings that took place prior to his appearance on 8th and 9th of February this year. Among other things, the Chief Executive confirmed that contrary to instructions by the Board, that he consults with the Attorney General regarding the best way to deal with the issue of COMESA, and the other conventions they were tying to hide under, he did not consult the Office of the Attorney-General. In light of the overwhelming evidence that we took, the Committee made the following recommendations: As I read through the recommendations, because I have already tabled the 13th Report of the PIC, I do not intend to repeat the issues captured in it. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, we made the following observations--- Arising from the evidence from papers laid and the foregoing deliberations by the Board, the Committee made the following specific observations. Those observations are on page 33 of this Report. \"(i) That, by instructing the management of the Board to attend and draw the letter Ref.KSB/COM/1A/A of November, 14th, 2005 - which is Appendix iv - the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, at the meeting at Kilimo House, had issued other instructions to the Chief Executive, who is only answerable to the Board as per Section 10 of the Sugar Act (2001) - the Ministry of Agriculture usurped the powers of the Board. The Committee expresses the view that, it was on the strength of that letter that the Kilimo House meeting was formalised and the contentious Legal Notice issued. The Chief Executive denied knowledge of that letter when he appeared before the Committee on 8th, February, until it was shown to him! (ii) That, the continued usurping of the statutory powers of the Board is not only irregular and illegal, but also renders the regulatory and control functions of the Board futile and, therefore, negating its very existence. (iii) That, the continued usurping of the regulatory and control powers of the Board on sugar importations would have direct negative implications on the Board's financial performance. (iv) That, considering that prior to February, 8th, 2006, the Board was not privy to the management's letter Ref.KSB/COM/1A/A of November, 14th, 2005 to the then Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, there was deliberate action by the KSB management to conceal its dealings with the Ministry in respect to the intended importations and as such, the Board was not aware of such dealings. (v) That, the Board was not consulted prior to the releasing of the Legal Notice No.2 of 2006. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, in view thereof, the Committee recommends:- (i) That, the Director of Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC) institutes investigations into the execution of sugar importations into the county under the COMESA/FTA arrangements for the periods 2004, 2005 and 2006 and, particularly, on the roles played by the officers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), Kenya Sugar Board (KSB), (including Board members), with a view to preferring appropriate charges against any person or persons found culpable. (ii) That, the Director of KACC institutes investigations into the role of Mr. Kipruto Arap Kirwa, MP, Mr. James E. Ongwae and Mr. Andrew Otieno, in the execution July 27, 2006 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 2449 of sugar importations into the country under the COMESA/FTA arrangements for the periods 2004, 2005 and 2006. (iii) Pursuant to Sections 10, 35 and 36 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (2003), the findings and recommendations of the Director of KACC in respect of (i) and (ii) above, be included in the Report of the fourth quarter for the year 2006. (iv) That, Mr. Kipruto Arap Kirwa and Mr. Andrew Otieno, the Chief Executive of KSB, immediately step aside to allow KACC to carry out the above mentioned investigations. (v) Without compromising the autonomy of KSB, and in order to streamline the sector and safeguard national interests in the importation of sugar, an inter- Ministerial Committee be formed, comprising and not limited to, representatives of KRA, Office of the Attorney-General, Ministry of Agriculture, KSB, Ministry of Trade and Industry and (all not below the level of Deputy Secretary), to set up guidelines for sugar importation by 31st, December, 2006, and make public the resultant regulations and guidelines, which would then be employed in all sugar imports under the COMESA/FTA safeguard window, for the period up to the year 2006. (vi) The Minister for Agriculture, now and in the future, refrains from interfering with the day to day activities of the Board. (vii) Where the parent Ministry has in the past irregularly negated administrative decisions made by the Board in its exercise of statutory powers, the Board should be at liberty to revisit the matter or matters and make appropriate decision or decisions.\" With those few remarks, I beg to move that the House adopts this Report and request my friend, a colleague in the Committee, Mr. Bahari, to second."
}