HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 946084,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/946084/?format=api",
"text_counter": 126,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Suba South, ODM",
"speaker_title": "Hon. John Mbadi",
"speaker": {
"id": 110,
"legal_name": "John Mbadi Ng'ong'o",
"slug": "john-mbadi"
},
"content": "instead of settling people who really lack land and need settlement, we end up with people with land elsewhere being settled there. I hope that will not happen. But I do not see a good reason for excising that forest because the Executive had indicated, through their Petition, that the forest will be degazetted in exchange for another one, which is Chepkitale. But it is clear in this Report that the residents of Chepkitale disagreed with that assertion. They have even stated that they were not ready to discuss the exchange of their ancestral land for allocation of land in Chepyuk Phases II and III. Therefore, the reason that the Executive gave is not going to fly, because the residents of the other area are saying no already and they are not ready to negotiate. So, that reason is not factual. What is more interesting is, reading the observations and findings of the Committee, Observation No. 1 and Finding No. 1 make some sense. It says that the reasons are as follows and I quote: “That insecurity and inter-clan clashes in Chepyuk Settlement Scheme were aggravated by land ownership conflicts because there is no clarity on who owns the land where those people are settled. That degazettement would ensure clarity on ownership of land and improve security in the region.” If this is done properly and the people who are supposed to benefit and those who are settled there get titles for their land, then it would make sense. But reason No. 4 does not make sense in my view. It says and I quote: “That the national Government, county government and other development partners have invested heavily in various projects including roads, security and administrative installations, communication and water facilities in the two phases of the scheme.” That cannot be a justification for degazetting a forest. The mere fact that people have invested in schools and roads have been put up there is not convincing. The Committee is saying that even in the case of Mau Forest, where people have already settled and we see schools, shopping centres, market places and roads all over the place, should be degazetted. So, you are telling me that if you encroach into a forest and establish schools, roads and water, then we should degazette that forest and give it for settlement. If we take that route as a country, in the next 20 years, we will not have any single forest in this country. So, I expected the Committee not to come up with such a recommendation as a finding. It is a finding that does not make sense. It is a finding that is not a justification for degazetting the forest. The other reason is that the area is already settled and relocation of the residents to alternative areas would be more costly than the degazettement of the two phases. Again, really, does that make sense? That, we cannot move people out of the forest because it is expensive and, therefore, we should leave them there? Then why are we telling the people who occupy Mau Forest to leave? Even getting them out is not cheap. It is expensive. First, there is the humanitarian aspect. Second, there is the aspect of settling them. You need to buy land and settle them there. So, this kind of reasoning does not make any justification for degazetting the forest. Even reason No. 6. I can go on and on. Let me just put my comments straight to the Committee. Maybe, we need to agree with you and have… The Chair is telling me that there are two committees. I agree that there have been so many reports. There was a taskforce. The Cabinet has sat. This matter has come up for so many years. Even the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) has agreed that this area can be degazetted. Based on that, I do not think all those experts could be wrong. That is why I reluctantly support this degazettement. Those experts have looked at this matter and they have seen that this recommendation is not going to be harmful to the future generations of this country. But we need to be very careful as a country and protect and conserve our forests. As we do that, I see laxity on 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."
}