Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 512379,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/512379/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 436,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Keynan",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 41,
        "legal_name": "Adan Wehliye Keynan",
        "slug": "adan-keynan"
    },
    "content": "highest financial bid of USD390 million and was, therefore, awarded the tender to purchase 51 per cent shares of Telkom Kenya. Therefore, France Telecom officially started its operations on 21st December 2007 and subsequently launched its Orange brand in Kenya. There are two issues that clearly come out as a result of this privatisation. The first privatisation started in December 2007, barely some few days before the general election of 2007. Secondly, the further dilution of shares, that is recapitalisation, started on 1st December 2012, barely some few months before the general elections of 2013. The question is: Why would the privatisation of such a serious public investment commence at a time when Kenyans are engaged in an election mood? I will clearly spell out the reasons why whoever was doing it timed it towards the end of 2007 and 2012 when everybody was very busy with the elections. The Government of Kenya made commitments as a result of this privatisation. The ownership and shareholding structures of Telkom Kenya substantially changed from 100 per cent Government-owned to an entity where the Government was a minority shareholder with 49 per cent. This changed everything in terms of the board structure, management and how the organisation was run. As a result of this, the Government of Kenya made a commitment to pay Kshs4.9 billion into Telkom without budgetary provision. This was towards the end. What I want to make clear is as a result of this first privatisation--- First of all, our laws require that whenever there is such serious privatisation the Privatisation Commission should be involved. The Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) should also be involved because it deals with a communications company. Shockingly, the Communications Commission of Kenya did not play any role in the first privatisation where the Government of Kenya sold 51 per cent of its shares. Secondly, the Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) also is involved in change of frequencies. There are serious communication issues. The second Government- own and funded agency that regulates communication was not involved. Why will somebody be prepared to undertake such serious privatisation without the involvement of two critical institutions that are charged with oversighting on how privatisation is carried out? The third entity that was supposed to be involved was the Office of the Attorney- General (AG) but which was not involved. Eventually, the entire privatisation of Telkom Kenya was treated like a private affair. I believe this is the reason why Telkom Kenya which is an offshoot of the old and giant Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (KPTC), today even with the inheritance of such serious telecommunication infrastructure; Orange Telkom is still do not doing well."
}