Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 851040,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/851040/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 371,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. M Kajwang’",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13162,
        "legal_name": "Moses Otieno Kajwang'",
        "slug": "moses-otieno-kajwang"
    },
    "content": "Sen. Orengo has addressed the question of who owns the land, because he has referred us to Article 61 (1) of the Constitution that clearly states: “All land in Kenya belongs to the people of Kenya collectively as a nation, as communities and as individuals.” To the question of who owns the land, I am convinced that the intention of the drafters of the Constitution, when they put in Article 61(1), was that land would be held by the State and for use and enjoyment of all Kenyans in an equal manner. Unfortunately, the implementation of the intention has not followed suit, because you still find people with thousands of acres of land and hear stories of land the size of the former Nyanza Province, being held by individuals, while there are those who live as squatters and in squalor in various parts of this country. Obviously, there is also the question of how much land a man needs. If you have 100 or 1,000 acres; how much do you need? I like referring to Leo Tolstoy who asked the same question and came to the conclusion that it is six feet wide and six feet deep. That tells you that, ultimately, we must make use of land and place ownership of land in a fashion that benefits not just current elites and bourgeoisie, but the future. When Kenya was intending to do the oil pipeline project, which was supposed to cut across certain parts of this country and connect to neighbouring countries, it was deemed more expensive to lay a pipeline through Kenya because of issues of land compensation and complications in land rights in Kenya as opposed to Tanzania. I know that Sen. Orengo has talked about this quite significantly. Going to the Bill before us, to a great extent, it tries to provide clarity in the process of compulsory acquisition of land. One of the reasons I have an interest in this is that there will be a Motion that will come up, where my Committee will be tabling its report on the compulsory acquisition of land in Nairobi. I do not want to anticipate debate, but stick to what is in this particular proposal. The process for compulsory acquisition is in Part VIII of the current Land Act. This Bill before us attempts to expand especially Section 107. This Bill, first of all, tries to expand the definition of ‘prompt, full and just compensation’. However, there is a huge contradiction. If we look at ‘prompt’ as an English word, then we would expect that it would mean ‘as fast as possible’ or ‘the fastest that is possible.’ However, this Bill defines ‘prompt,’ but gives it one year. I do not know whether one year can count as promptness in any case of commercial nature or compensation. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate"
}