Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 926101,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/926101/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 142,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Funyula, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Wilberforce Oundo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13331,
        "legal_name": "Wilberforce Ojiambo Oundo",
        "slug": "wilberforce-ojiambo-oundo-2"
    },
    "content": " We must commend the Committee and the KDF for accepting to open up for scrutiny in the acquisition and utilisation of public resources. I have had a chance to peruse through the Report and I must say the Committee has made a reasonable attempt to bring into fore the issues at hand. There are a few issues that need to be brought into the attention of the Committee, so that as they retreat to reconsider or even as we approve the Report, probably when it comes to implementation, they need to come out clearly. One, looking and listening through the Report, it is as if the maximum or the ideal size of land to be acquired was 5,000 acres. That was the ideal parcel of land to be acquired to ensure that whatever is supposed to be done is effective, efficient and serves the purpose for which it was intended. The only danger and fear - and time will tell - is that acquiring land in phases will essentially end up inflating the cost of acquiring the land. There is a basic principle about factors determining value that once there is an economic stimulus, there is something around that area in terms of the value of land generally increasing substantially. The rate at which it will increase is dependent upon how the community receives the facility and how the facility contributes to the economic wellbeing of the neighborhood. My fear is that we have another scandal in the making. We have another case of inflated cost of land acquisition that could even be much higher than the cost of the capital projects. I urge the Committee to seriously go back to the drawing board and generally tell the Ministry of Defence that in fairness, in good order, and in order to fully utilise and effectively absorb public resources, they could probably face the development project with land acquisition as the first aspect and the rest of the issues can come much later. If this is not done, the project will end up being scaled down and will not serve the purpose for which it was supposed to. The cost of acquiring land might be more than 100 times the cost of acquiring it at this particular moment. The second issue at hand, which seems to be a glaring omission looking at the conclusion of the Report, is the fact that there seems to be no environmental impact assessment. Looking 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."
}