HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 253629,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/253629/?format=api",
"text_counter": 301,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. M. Kilonzo",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 47,
"legal_name": "Mutula Kilonzo",
"slug": "mutula-kilonzo"
},
"content": "Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to contribute to this debate. Allow me to say, at the outset, that I support the Motion. Allow me also to say that it surprises me, that at this point in time, it seems that the Government has forgotten that we are debating this Report in the backdrop of a country that enjoys an anti-corruption law that we passed in May, 2003. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it seems to me that the Government has forgotten the various offences and violations of the law that this House put down on paper and in the statute books. It pains me when it seems that similarly, the Government has forgotten that for the first time in history, this country has got the Public Officers Ethics Act. It interests me in the sense that it is the Government that introduced that particular law. It is my submission that much of the support that the Government side says it will advance to this proposal is tainted by cynicism. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I listened to this debate, it appeared that the Government has forgotten that under Legal Notice No.51 of 2001, this country enacted the Exchequer and Audit Public Procurement Regulations, 2001. These, as I will demonstrate, have been violated, left, right and centre. Under Legal Notice No.161 of 2002, the Government yet again introduced an amendment to the same Procurement Regulations. With utmost humility, could I ask the Chair for permission to read paragraph 8 at page two of this Report. It reads as follows:- \"On 1st August, 2003, a firm by the name Anglo Leasing and Finance Limited of Alpha House, 100 Upper Parliament Street, Liverpool, L19 AA UK, submitted to the Permanent Secretary, Office of the Vice-President and Ministry of Home Affairs what appears to be an unsolicited technical proposal, for supply and installation of an immigration security document control system. In its proposal the firm indicated that it could supply and instal the system through its officially- designated systems sub-contract, in the name of Francois Charles Oberthur Fiduciare of France (FCOF). The firm also submitted, alongside the proposal, a proposed financing agreement explaining the contract and financing terms and conditions.\" The offer in the agreement proposed a facility of Euro31 million for the systems repayable at 5 per cent per annum quarterly, commencing after three months. The Committee says and I quote:- \"It is not clear how the financing firm could have prepared and submitted a detailed proposal for a project similar to the one recommended by GITS before a request to do so had been officially made to it by the Government. But the indications are that the firm may have had fore-knowledge of the recommendations to enhance and expand the system.\" Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I say that without fear of contradiction because I have them here. That, in itself, is a violation of the procurement regulations of 2001/2002. That is because in paragraph 9 they say:- \"Nevertheless, the Ministry accepted the proposal and, in a letter dated 5th September, April 18, 2006 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 505 2003, addressed to the Permanent Secretary, Treasury and Permanent Secretary, Office of the Vice-President and Ministry of Home Affairs, sought for Treasury's authority for direct procurement of the equipment, and the authority was granted in a letter dated 26th November, 2004.\" Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, as a matter of fact, the Government is lucky that this Committee was chaired by Mr. Uhuru Kenyatta, a man of very good temperament. If it was chaired by anyone else, the arguments would have been extremely harsh! That is because the fact of the matter is that paragraphs 8 and 9 clearly confirms that the law was violated. How? The fact of the matter is that there is no need for further investigation. The moment it appears that two Ministers in the name of His Excellency the Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs - a man I respect -and the Minister for Finance colluded in the process of securing a single sourcing process in violation of Regulations 19, 3 and 35 of the Procurement Regulations--- The law is very clear on procurement. Allow me again, with your kind permission, to read the Regulations, because it is this House which passed them. We owe an obligation to this country to be clear on what we are saying. First of all, let me read the following:_ \"These regulations shall apply to all public procurement by public entities.\" Regulation 3(2) reads:- \"These regulations shall not apply where the Minister shall, in consultations with the Head of the procuring entity, decide that it is in the interest of national security or national defence to use a different procedure in which case, the Minister shall define the method of procurement to be followed in order to secure the interest of the economy and efficiency.\" You can see what I am saying! I am saying that Anglo Leasing, even before the Minister could decide to exempt that procurement from the regulations, is already making what you might otherwise call \"un-solicited proposals for the supply\". Clearly, the regulation was violated. The reason I take off my hat to Mr. Uhuru Kenyatta - the Chairman of this Committee - is simply that they should have given us the two letters by way of an addendum; the letter dated 5th September, 2003 and the letter dated 8th September, 2003, in which the so-called authority was obtained. I dare say that, the fact that those letters have not been referred to even by the Ministers themselves, suggest to me that those Ministers are aware that those letters would not qualify under the provisions of Regulation No.3(2) of the Procurement Regulations that I have read. Let me also show you something else. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in paragraph 11, the Committee has said as follows:- \"The Attorney-General's Office was requested for comment and advice.\" What the Attorney-General's Office did was to recommend due diligence be carried out. That appears clearly in paragraph 11. You would be surprised that, ultimately, that advice was totally ignored. The meaning of due diligence is whereby, if a young man has come to your home and wants to marry your daughter, the due diligence is to say: 'Go and come with your parents! I want to know where you come from. In due course, arrange a visit!\" In that particular instance---"
}