Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 661427,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/661427/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 316,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Tonui",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1242,
        "legal_name": "Ronald Kiprotich Tonui",
        "slug": "ronald-kiprotich-tonui"
    },
    "content": "Phase I was not being used fully or being properly utilised. That day, there were several berths without ships. It looked like staff members were on holiday. We are yet to use Phase II, but we are talking of going for more loans to build Phase III. We should use Phase II and understand the need for expansion. The fact that the loan is going to be cheap because the interest is very low is not an adequate reason for us to go on a borrowing spree. We need to borrow cheap money and utilise it in better areas, like the construction of tarmac roads in our rural areas rather than concentrating on the Kenya Ports Authority (KPA). When we visited the Port, one of the managers there mentioned to us – God forbid – that the Port would be closed should an accident occur in the channel that leads to the docking berths because the channel is one-way. It cannot allow two ships to pass at the same time. I wonder whether it makes sense to continue investing in it when we know that there is the development of the Port of Lamu, which is going to be the largest sea port in Kenya. Those resources need to be re-directed to the building of the Lamu Port while we wait to exploit the current capacity of the Port of Mombasa under Phases I and II, which are complete. The number of berths that will be created in Phase II will be less than those in Phase I, despite Phase I having been much cheaper. The issue of service roads at the Port of Mombasa has been sorted in Phase II. The additional funds we are borrowing for Phase III are not for road works. Why should it be more expensive than Phase I? It is not wise for this House to approve this before the other phase is properly used. That is my point of contestation. Now that we have the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR), goods will be moving out of the Port of Mombasa at a faster rate. Cargo will not accumulate because of faster means of transport inland. Why do we need to increase the cargo holding capacity of the warehouses within the Port when we have the SGR, which will ensure that the movement of goods out of the Port of Mombasa is faster? This borrowing is not a priority at the moment. The way we are burdening the taxpayers with many loans is not good. It will be quite irresponsible of this House to continue to encourage a borrowing spree on projects which we consider to be non-priority. As we continue to borrow for the KPA, the cost of operations at the Port will go up. We now have strong competition from Tanzanian’s Dar-es-Salaam and Tanga ports. We need to reduce the cost of shipping services in this country. That is why the Ugandans are now re-routing their goods through Tanzania. The road works linking Moshi with Mwanza and Arusha are being completed. It implies that goods destined for Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi will pass through the southern route rather than the Kenyan route. The latter tends to be more expensive in shipping and everything else. I oppose this Special Motion. I request my colleagues to oppose it so that we can bring in responsibility. That is so that we are not eager to borrow whether the loan is on 10 per cent interest or something else. I do not see the urgency for borrowing Kshs27.30 billion to expand the Port of Mombasa. It is not a priority. Let us be responsible as a House and ensure that we only approve what is truly necessary for this country. Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker."
}