Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 619441,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/619441/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 244,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Manje",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1669,
        "legal_name": "Joseph Wathigo Manje",
        "slug": "joseph-wathigo-manje"
    },
    "content": "When we went further, we realised that the JKUAT had entered into another agreement with Align architects. The JKUAT was getting only 5 per cent of the proceeds. It then means that this was purely a private organisation and not the university’s enterprise organisation as they wanted us to believe. The Chief Registrar and the Judiciary purchased a house that was not properly valued. The official residence of the Chief Justice was bought at Kshs300 million yet there was no valuation. When we visited the house, we realised that it was not worth that much. It was actually being renovated. At that particular time, they were removing the infrastructure and trying to change it. I do not think the Chief Justice is using the house even now. That means the Judiciary is not a well thought out institution. We also visited some of the installations that were done. We realised that the Chief Registrar spent about Kshs188 million to do the fittings at Elgon Place yet it is not in use. This is wasted money. They also paid rent for two years yet the house was not in use. We are saying that the institution that is charged with the responsibility of fighting corruption in this county found itself in a very awkward situation, where corruption was taking place. We can use this case as a measure of how far we are, as a country, in the fight against corruption. No wonder corruption is taking place at the national and county levels of the Government countrywide. We also found that the Chief Registrar went ahead and procured leases that were not properly advertised. The advertised areas were different from what was leased, meaning that there was no justification for paying in some areas. We also realised that there was an institution where rent was based on future rates. For instance, there was a negotiated payment for rent in a particular area, but it was paid based on rent of 1st July, 2017, a year that is yet to come. There is also the issue of second-hand items that were purchased by the Judiciary. It is not proper for a Government institution to purchase second-hand furniture. In this particular case, the institution that was mandated to undertake the valuation valued the assets at Kshs32 million, but the Judiciary bought them at Kshs59 million. This means that a difference of Kshs27 million was pocketed by some people. This is not acceptable in this country. This is how deep we have sunk as a country in terms of corruption. We lost about Kshs2.2 billion in the Judiciary. A sum of Kshs2.2 billion cannot be well accounted for by the Chief Justice. The Judiciary, as the custodian of the law in this country, does not respect the law. Who else can respect the law? Kenyans are asking themselves what alternatives they have other than refusing to pay tax if the Report is not implemented. If people pay tax, but the money is not put into proper use, and the custodian of the law breaks the law, then Kenyans are left with very few alternatives. Another example I would like to cite in this Report are the prefabricated court rooms that were distributed across the country within a very short time. If you go to Bomet, you will find that they paid about Kshs81 million for prefabricated court rooms, but even before the work was 75 per cent complete, another contractor was given a contract to construct a permanent law court facility at a cost of Kshs688 million. Imagine what this means. Even before the first project was complete, another project was commissioned for the same purpose. When we called the Chief Justice to appear before the Committee to explain the issues that nobody else could have explained, he declined. No wonder, thereafter, he sent receipts to show that he refunded some of the money. We had asked him to appear before the Committee to explain why he had not occupied the house that was bought for him and instead he continued to pay rent. That is a question which only he can answer. 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."
}