HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 704154,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/704154/?format=api",
"text_counter": 52,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "left Uganda yet there is no record in Lwakhakha, Malaba or Busia of any property belonging to them – be it land or shop – having been taken over by the locals. The second question was about how many children and women have been left suffering out in the street. The third question was about the measures the Government is taking to secure their good health from the scorching heat and cold in the night and finally whether these IDPs can be given Kshs400,000 each, similar to what was given to the other IDPs who were resettled. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Government is aware that a group of returnees is currently camping along Parliament Road. The Government is further aware that a team visited Kiryandogo in Uganda in order to facilitate the repatriation of Kenyan refugees. Subsequently, on 21st November, 2014, the Government set up a taskforce with the mandate to profile and work out modalities of repatriation of the refugees to Kenya. In collaboration with the Ugandan Government, the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) and refugees’ leadership, the task force conducted the profiling exercise of the refugees between 14th and 16th December, 2014. From the profiling exercise, 246 households with 979 family members were identified for repatriation; 42 families with 72 family members indicated their unwillingness to return; 21 households were rejected on account of lacking the necessary proof of their status; 43 households were not available for profiling while 47 households were asylum seekers. From the report, it is only 246 households that were cleared to be repatriated and all of them have since been paid between Kshs100,000 for families of between one to three members and Kshs150,000 for families with four or more members. Mr. Speaker, Sir, from the original list documented by the taskforce, the returnees had indicated their home areas where they preferred to be returned. It revealed that they came from across the country, but majority were from Western Kenya and Rift Valley. The areas included:- (i) Coast – Mombasa, Voi, Lamu, Malindi and Kilifi; (ii) Rift Valley – Eldoret, Nakuru, Londiani, Molo, Naivasha, Marakwet, Maralal, Gilgil, Kilgoris and Isiolo; (iii) Western Kenya – Mount Elgon, Kitale, Busia, Trans Nzoia, Bungoma, Cherangani, Malaba and Turbo; (iv)Central Kenya – Murang’a, Limuru, Kiambu, Meru, Nyandarua, Nyahururu, Kinangop, Thika, Nyeri and Nanyuki; (v) Eastern Kenya – Athi River, Kitui and Mwingi; (vi) Kisumu; and, (vii) Nairobi. Mr. Speaker, Sir, as stated in the taskforce report, only 246 households were cleared for repatriation. However, during the repatriation process, most of the Kenyan refugees in Uganda decided to return home. This meant that even the households that had not been cleared by the taskforce were transported along. On closure, a scrutiny of a list provided by the leaders of the returnees, there is discrepancy between the list provided by the leaders of the returnees and that held by the Government. It is suspected that either some of the returnees are not Post-Election Violence (PEV) victims or they could be people out to benefit from the process. Alternatively, the returnees could have split families where children are presenting The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate"
}