Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 618949,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/618949/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 153,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Eng.) Gumbo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 24,
        "legal_name": "Nicholas Gumbo",
        "slug": "nicholas-gumbo"
    },
    "content": "procurement process that lacked foresight, prudence and due diligence. That represents wastage of Kshs24,358,193.50, of the total Kshs48,719,307 that was paid for the premises. Moreover, the agreement provided for a rent deposit of six months amounting to Kshs32,400,000, which was based on rent payable effective 1st July 2017. The Accounting Officer in this particular instance did not act in the interest of the Judiciary, thus causing a loss of Kshs6,482,056.50. The Committee also found that direct procurement was used in the purchase of second hand furniture. The Committee was not satisfied with the explanation for direct procurement. Mrs. Shollei was the Accounting Officer who sanctioned those awards and payment to PriceWaterHouseCoopers (PwC) to the tune of Kshs59,699,492. It seems unbelievably coincidental that this figure is almost the exact same amount the Judiciary paid the Prisons Service as deposit for supply of furniture. This begs the question: Were those mere whimsical numbers thrown around by an organisation in a rush to spend public funds or the result of careful and meticulous market research and valuation? It looks more likely that those figures were the result of hurried impulsive spending of public funds. Failure to provide for open and competitive bidding denied the taxpayer best bargains and made it difficult to establish whether the Judiciary got value for money. Mrs. Gladys Boss Shollei is culpable in the procurement of the Containerised Data Centre. The Committee finds that this project was the brainchild of Mrs. Shollei and the then Director of ICT, Mr. Tom Atak. While the stated objectives were noble, the real intentions of this flawed procurement seemed to have been no more than a poorly constructed scheme to fleece taxpayers. The procurement was un-procedural from the start as evidence disputes a needs request from the directorate and this is indicated by failure to commission the project to date. In any case, the project remains incomplete and unusable. More than Kshs106,720,048.97 was spent on this imprudent expenditure, plus a further Kshs18 million as warranty that was supposed to be included in the contract price. Evidence received showed that Mrs. Shollei not only brought this matter to the attention of the JSC after expenditure, but also flouted JSC directive of being involved in any expenditure exceeding Kshs50 million. The Committee finds Mrs. Shollei responsible for directly procuring services from Jomo Kenyatta University of Science and Technology Enterprise Services Limited and proceeding to award it several contracts, among them valuation of second hand furniture and the Chief Justice official residence. The Committee disagreed with the explanation that it was a Government to Government procurement. The JKUATES Limited was a limited liability entity whose proceeds were shared among private individuals behind it, including lecturers in their private capacities and a private company, namely, Align Architects, to the tune of 95 per cent. Engagement of this private firm is found to have contravened the provisions of the Public Procurement and Disposal Act as it was meant to circumvent the law as a Government to Government contract (See annexure 10). Mrs. Gladys Shollei is also culpable in the procurement of prefabricated court houses in seven towns in the country. The Judiciary made several advance payments of Kshs126,703,827 to M/s. Timsales Limited and Kshs26,469,832 to Economic Housing Group contrary to Section 14(7) of the Government Financial Regulations and Procedures which provide that payment to contractors should be made on the basis of signed contracts and a payment voucher prepared that is supported by certified delivery of goods, works and/or services. Those constructions proved costly at Kshs626,535,974, defeating the stated purpose of affordability and reduced contract periods. A site visit to Runyenjes Court, for example, showed that the project cost was more than The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}