Amos Kimunya

All parliamentary appearances

Entries 5481 to 5490 of 6175.

• 28 Jan 2009 in National Assembly: Significantly, in law, according to my understanding, a sale of land is only considered a sale when the transfer has been effected. The sale process would involve the negotiations and then people would capture those negotiations within a sale agreement, which would list all the conditions that must be met before the property is transferred. After such a transfer, you can then say that you have sold or not. view
• 28 Jan 2009 in National Assembly: Indeed, we have seen so many State transactions, or so-called "state transactions" falling out before the final conclusion, including, for instance, the sale of the NSSF land next to the Grand Regency Hotel, and so many others. view
• 28 Jan 2009 in National Assembly: I may be wrong, but my understanding of a sale is when the transfer has been effected. I did make that clarification to the Committee. I told them: "If that is the point of departure, then we are differing on the interpretation. My interpretation is that a sale is only deemed to have taken place when the transfer has been effected, while your interpretation of a sale is when somebody has expressed an interest to buy." view
• 28 Jan 2009 in National Assembly: Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, if that was the case, then I am sorry that, perhaps, we are only reading from different pages, but we are looking at the same transaction. At no any one time did I intend to mislead the Committee or the House, about the sale. We were only differing on the interpretation. view
• 28 Jan 2009 in National Assembly: Thank you, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker. Indeed, I am trying. As I said at the beginning, I am not here to defend myself. I am speaking as a Member of this House. I am quoting what is in the HANSARD and what is in the Committee's Report. The important thing is that we have HANSARD recordings of what I said in the House, and we have what the Committee has said. view
• 28 Jan 2009 in National Assembly: If the two positions are different, then we are looking at what I explained to the Committee, as to my understanding of the sale. The conclusion that has been arrived at by the Committee is that I misled the Committee that the hotel had not been sold when I was all along talking about the sale not having been concluded, but that the sale process was ongoing. I gave the information to the Committee, and to this House. It is in the HANSARD. view
• 28 Jan 2009 in National Assembly: Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I actually even did say that I would not give the valuation details in this House, because it would jeopardise the ongoing negotiations. So, we all recognised that there was a sale process which was going on. I told that much to the Committee. So, the issue of whether I said the hotel had been sold or not sold should not, really, be arising. That is only one of the issues that have been highlighted by the Committee in its Report. It is on that basis, that the Committee felt that my conduct was not compatible ... view
• 28 Jan 2009 in National Assembly: There are so many other issues. However, I just want to highlight the ones that the Chairman has highlighted. One of those issues is that the Committee wrote a letter to me and said that they had received evidence from other people, and they believed that we should stop the sale. view
• 28 Jan 2009 in National Assembly: Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I asked the Permanent Secretary to quickly write back and say that I was very uncomfortable with the content of that letter, and that I would need to seek an urgent meeting with the Committee, so that we could discuss what exactly caused them to come to that conclusion. view
• 28 Jan 2009 in National Assembly: Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, we arranged the meeting. I was in the middle of preparing the National Budget. I interrupted that exercise. I asked my secretary to call the Committee and say that I would be coming a half an hour late, which was done. Then I drove to Parliament Buildings. view