HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 253509,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/253509/?format=api",
"text_counter": 181,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Awori",
"speaker_title": "The Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs",
"speaker": {
"id": 290,
"legal_name": "Moody Arthur Awori",
"slug": "moody-awori"
},
"content": " Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. I would like to start by congratulating the Leader of Official Opposition for the excellent way in which he presented this Report. Likewise, I would like to congratulate the Government Responder for the fluency in which she dealt with the matter. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government's determination to fight corruption is total. I am part of that Government and I abhor corruption. If I stood here and tried to oppose the adoption of this Report, I would be sending out the wrong signal that the Government has no resolve to fight corruption. But when the Leader of Official Opposition moved this Motion, he emphasized the fact that, he and his Committee were interested in nothing but the truth. I was very encouraged by those words. We should seek only the truth, with no conjecture or perception. We should seek nothing but the truth. But I get into a problem when I find that there is a lot of conjecture, perception and inconsistencies in this Report. So, what am I going to do? Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have read the Report very carefully. I seek your indulgence to use my notes very extensively. I will be referring to the Report and back to the notes. Therefore, it April 18, 2006 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 485 should not be taken as if I am reading a statement. I will simply be moving from my notes to the Report. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are so many errors of fact, distortions and mis-findings. The whole thing, without any evidence, leaves the credibility of the whole Report to me. Let me start by looking at page 43 where it states:- \"The Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs read a Ministerial Statement in Parliament in which he exonerated himself from any wrong-doing in respect of the contracts, and further informed Parliament that the passport contract with Anglo Leasing was valid.\" Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, that is totally false. It is also a distortion of facts. The correct position is very simple. In the Ministerial Statement that I read, I said quite clearly that the Government entered into a contract with a company whose name is very difficult for me to read, but it is a French company. The Statement further stated that, that entity entered into a financial arrangement with Anglo Leasing Finance Company. Therefore, I am unable to understand why the Committee chose to distort what I read and twist it to appear that the Statement was referring to a contract between the Anglo Leasing Company and the Government. At the same page, the Report further states:- \"The Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs misleadingly defended the reputation of Anglo Leasing in his Ministerial Statement.\" Again, that is plainly and definitely false. It is a distortion of the facts. In the Ministerial Statement, which is before this House, I did not, at any stage, defend the reputation of Anglo Leasing. My Statement referred entirely to the supplier; the French company. As regards the reputation, the Statement limits itself entirely to the reputation of the French company, which was the supplier. It simply says that, that company is an internationally reputable firm which has undertaken similar projects elsewhere. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, again, it is difficult for me to understand why the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) distorted true facts and twisted the evidence to make it appear like I was defending the Anglo Leasing Company. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on page 44, in the same paragraph, the Report states:- \"The Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs must take responsibility for recklessly asserting that Anglo Leasing was a company of good repute when evidence available is in the contrary.\" Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, for the very same reason that I have already stated, the findings and the recommendations by PAC is a distortion of facts without any factual foundation. I have never, at any time, asserted before this House that Anglo Leasing was a company of good repute. Just to make that clear, I have the HANSARD of 27th April, 2004. A paragraph on page five reads:- \"---that being an important security project in the country, and in view of the urgency of the project, the Government scouted for possible alternative source of funds, as donors were not forthcoming. Consequently, Franchois-Charles Obethur Fiduciare of France offered to supply the enhanced and integrated immigration information management system, and to apply credit financing through Anglo Leasing and Finance. That company, which is the supplier, is an international reputable company which has undertaken similar projects.\" Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I was referring to Anglo Leasing as reputable company, I would have talked of that company having made financial arrangements for any other projects. In whichever way you look at it, my statement referred entirely to the supplier. That is the only time in 486 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES April 18, 2006 the Statement that the name \"Anglo Leasing\" comes out. So, for them to say that I was reckless in giving repute to a company like Anglo Leasing is to distort the facts and to refuse to accept the meaning which I gave when I read the Statement. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is further stated on page 43 of the Report:- \"If the Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs wanted the Committee to believe that he only had a peripheral role in the processing of the Anglo Leasing contracts, this would be an abdication of his responsibility. As a Minister, Section 22, Item 3 of the Constitution requires that he exercises direction and control over his Ministry.\" The accusation that I failed to exercise direct control over my Ministry is definitely false. It is proved false by the Committee's own findings of facts on page 38 of the Report. It gives the sequence of events as follows:- On 5th September, 2003, the Permanent Secretary, Office of the Vice-President and Ministry of Home Affairs wrote to the Permanent Secretary, Treasury, seeking authority for direct procurement of ISDCS. Treasury granted authority by its letter dated 23rd November, 2003. On 5th September, 2003, the Permanent Secretary, Office of the Vice-President and Ministry of Home Affairs wrote a separate letter to the Permanent Secretary, Treasury, providing the details of Anglo Leasing's proposal, and requesting for a technical review of the proposed systems. Simultaneously, the Permanent Secretary, Office of the Vice-President and Ministry of Home Affairs wrote to the Attorney-General seeking legal comments and advice on the financing agreement submitted by Anglo Leasing. \"...On the 8th September, 2003, the Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs wrote a memo in response to Mr. Mwaliko's memo of 5th September. The Vice- President's memo authorised the Permanent Secretary to go ahead and submit the proposals to the Treasury for technical evaluation, submit the proposed contract document to the Attorney-General for legal opinion; and finally, to request the Ministry of Finance to consider and approve the project if it found it viable.\" A summary of this sequence of events is as follows. On the 5th of September, 2003, my then Permanent Secretary wrote to me a memo with a reference to this project. On the 8th of September, I responded to the memo and gave specific instructions on the procedure to be followed before conclusion of the intended contract. These were to seek advice from the Attorney-General on the legal aspects of the contract and to get approval of the Treasury on the viability of the intended project. For avoidance of any doubt, my memo reads as follows: \"I refer to your memo on the above subject (Immigration security and document control systems project). Will you, please, go ahead and submit the proposal to the Treasury for technical evaluation; submit the proposal and contract document to the Attorney-General for legal opinion and finally request the Ministry of Finance to consider and approve the project if it finds it viable. The only point that may need to be re-looked at is the interest rates; perhaps 4.7 per cent would be more acceptable to the Treasury.\" Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I issued specific instructions for the Permanent Secretary to follow. Therefore, I exercised control as the Minister in charge and gave specific instructions. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on page 44, the report states; \"The Committee accepts the evidence of Mr. Githongo that he warned the Vice- President before the contract with Anglo Leasing was signed, that this was a questionable contract. Notwithstanding his warning, he abdicated his responsibility which allowed Anglo Leasing to sign a contract that was outrightly disadvantageous to public interest.\" April 18, 2006 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 487 Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am dismayed with this accusation. A casual glance at the Report clearly demonstrates and proves that this is a deliberate distortion of facts. The Committee's own findings disclose the following sequence of events."
}