Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 851792,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/851792/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 297,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "That is a ―no‖ and it is not possible. We will not allow acquisition of land where they take possession of the land before they make the payment. In fact, once you follow what has been said in the other clauses, it appears very contradictory. This definition of ‗prompt‘ in the Bill is wrong and we must amend it. Clause 2(ii) says- ―a written undertaking indicating the appointed dates, not being more than one year from the date of undertaking, when compensation is to be made.‖ When you go to Mwikali in Kathonzweni and you tell her: ―Please leave your land, we are going to acquire it. We will pay you after one year and this is an undertaking.‖ That is mistreatment of Kenyans and a violation of their rights. To that extent, I disagree. In Clause 4, there appears to be a bar on the court and the reliefs that it might grant. I will suggest that we delete that clause for we cannot limit the power of the court to issue any orders. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, in Clause 5(a), I disagree with the idea that the Commission will value land. We must allow independent valuers to also have an opportunity. That is why there is a Tribunal consisting of the Surveyors Board of Kenya (SBK). If in the valuation of land, we have not given an opportunity for the SBK to have a say on the valuation, what is the basis of putting them in the Tribunal? The Commission cannot be the one to pay, acquire and value. In a proper inquiry on acquisition of land, private valuers must be allowed to value. In terms of what is supposed to be in the notice, this particular proposal on legislation omits a very important feature. This is what caused the problems where Prof. Swazuri and his friends have been charged. Land must have the acreage. What they are now doing in the National Land Commission (NLC) so that they can get into this fraud is leave it blank then they assign their own values and nobody knows what they have done. Eventually, you find out that the land was acquired twice and the initial purpose of the land that was to be acquired is possibly one acre, but they acquired 50 and paid for it. Therefore, we must stipulate. The court has ruled that the notice must indicate the acreage in exact terms that they want to acquire. Clause 6 on amendments of Section 107A on the criteria for valuation is not very interesting. When a person is told that if they build a House in a particular place two years prior to acquisition, it will not be paid for, there is something wrong with that. How is an ordinary Kenyan supposed to know that the Government is supposed to acquire their land for purposes of, for example, a dam? Therefore, when a caveat of two years is put prior to gazettment, it means that if I have a piece of land in Makueni County and the Government intends to do the express way, I cannot do anything because, one, the two years period is already covered. Two, I will not be paid if I decide I want to build beautiful flats if I have some money. It is wrong. The period for acquisition must be the period when the notice is issued unless the Government now changes tact and says that for the next five years; it will acquire land in ―X ―number of places. I went to Elgeyo-Marakwet where they want to do a dam but it will not be possible. However, the Government can plan well and get into an agreement. Where a 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."
}