Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 814320,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/814320/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 281,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Saku, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Ali Dido",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13473,
        "legal_name": "Dido Ali Raso",
        "slug": "dido-ali-raso"
    },
    "content": "acquisition of land. The land in Kenya either belongs to individuals or communities. The Constitution is very clear in terms of what public, private and community land is. An example is the construction of the Nairobi-Addis Ababa Highway or the Isiolo- Moyale Road in the county of Marsabit; which is a good road. It has opened up our area to development. That road passes through the major urban centres that are spread across Marsabit County. When you look at the schedule of compensation, people are compensated with as little as Kshs1, 000, yet they lost half their plots or almost all their plots within town. This Bill gives us grounding, particularly as the people of Marsabit. In the fullness of time, we will petition the National Assembly for compensation because if we compare the compensation for the Standard Gauge Railway and what people in Marsabit were given, we were given peanuts. We must bring our voices to this House so that those, whose land was taken for the good purpose of constructing the highway, can be compensated according to the prevailing market prices in that area. For sure, land is capital in Kenya. It is a factor of production. We cannot run away from that fact. We must also ask ourselves as Kenyans: When did the rain start beating us? I think immediately after Independence, the land belonged to individuals. Individuals were allowed to acquire big pieces of land. Today, they are able to speculate and sell that land at whatever price they wish. Through this particular Bill, we are able to have a clear understanding and direction, particularly to the policy makers, on how to proceed in acquiring land by law and not by force as it used to happen, where the administrators were able to take land from the citizenry without following the due process of the law. Earlier speakers have added their voice on the area of land acquisition tribunal. However, I particularly want to say that when we say that the land either belongs to the community or to the individuals, those lands are in counties and we would expect an individual to be appointed by the Council of Governors to be part of that tribunal so that he or she represents the interest of the people during a particular discussion. On the part of compensation, it is good that various options have been provided. But the guiding principle should be that it must be in consultation with the owner or owners of the land so that the owner or owners can be at liberty to take some of the options that are provided without necessarily being forced to accept a particular option. The interesting thing in this Bill is on the valuation of freehold land and community land for purposes of compensation. Almost 150,000 acres of land belonging to the people of Marsabit and the people who live along Lake Turkana was taken over by the wind company without payment of a single coin to the communities that live in that area. That project will supply 360 Megawatts of electricity to the national grid. Such Bill gives grounding to those communities to have something to hang their hearts on, and something that will allow them to raise their voices. Also, on community land, this Bill is going to be very helpful to those of us who do not have title deeds for most of our land, particularly in arid and semi-arid areas or pastoral areas. It may not comprehensively answer all the questions, but it will allow us to challenge policy makers when they go astray or when they try to move their position forcefully against the interests of the community occupying a certain area. This Bill makes a provision to challenge the court, or that the court should not participate or challenge a particular issue. We should not go in that direction. The court is the arbiter of last resort. When a statute says that you should not appear before a court of law, then we will go against the grain of our Constitution. The Committee should think deeply about that provision with a view to re-phrasing the particular clause. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. Acertified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}