|
Post by adongo23456 on Aug 22, 2011 18:17:47 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Aug 22, 2011 19:05:37 GMT 3
Job
ODM MUST TAKE LEAD IN DEVOLUTION AND LAND REFORMS
[Between the lines: why ODM wont take the lead on anything!] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As Parliament embarks on an intense phase of debating support legislation for the new constitution, ODM - the party genuinely championing devolution and land reforms – must now cut a niche above its competitors by leading from the front. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There above you declare assiduously that the ODM is the party GENUINELY championing.. Etc etc. I think that already declares PNU fake. My point is, even a careless look at the 100 plus MPS of ODM,would undercut the qualification genuine!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The party must guard against PNU and KKK attempts to water down or delay the changes aspired. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outside the KKK orbit but within the ODM, there were and are enough anti-reformers. Incapacitating the party before the party started.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The party should strive to recapture peoples’ collective attention on what can be achieved through this new constitution regarding: guaranteeing equitable access to land; taxation of swathes of idle private land; formation of an independent and accountable National Land Commission - NLC (that safeguards public land); redressing historical land injustices; addressing pastoral land issues; addressing land rights of minority and marginalized groups; safeguarding rights of women and children; and affirming land rights of informal settlement dwellers. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now this are what I term brilliant ideas, but they are adressed to the deaf. I would have rather have had you address them to the progressive constifuency irrespective of party allegiance. Your belief in the ODM as the genuine one capable of pushing this agenda is a fallacy. An intellectual blind spot not uncommon in popular analysis. But actually the stuff of propagandists trading in political fiction. Then you follow up with more rigorous, vintage ‘what is to be done’ stuff on the land question. But you are completely unaware that your suggestions are outside the scope of those you are calling upon to effect them, first and foremost Orengo:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lands Minister James Orengo must proactively ensure that the drafts coming to Parliament (through CIC’s input) conform to both the constitution and the Land Policy ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You see job, here you are admonishing the nyapara selected by the hyenas to become a vegetarian. You are hoodwinked into believing he is genuine! Willing and capable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This sensitive land issue is one that is quite easy to politicize, where peasants can actually be hoodwinked to line up against their own interests – especially when led astray by sweet-talking demagogues such as William Ruto. Poor peoples’ eyes may only open up when it’s too late. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps together with the peasants you better count yourself amongst these poor people whose eyes are likely to open too late. Personally when the Ndung’u report came out, I waited for a while to see what they would do with it before I banged the door shut on them. The ODM party cannot deliver land reforms. The unadulterated support legislation as you call it, is a dream pipe in this party.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do not see Mwai Kibaki, Uhuru Kenyatta, William Ruto, John Michuki, Isaac Ruto, or Moi (a few powerful impunity merchants) agreeing to subject their own grabbed land to NLC’s scrutiny of ownership or even taxation assessments, ..... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not underestimate the determination of small scale grabbers too, to escape the net. That will say, your petty land thieves in ODM would ideologically support Michuki and Kibaki in their sabotage, will support the coalition of impunity. I miss this nuance. Not to mention their names!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did you say 'glaring evil ONLY in the eye of the PNU bandits'? Where is the evidence that I spared ODM from blame? Did I not list a combo of leaders transcending party and ethnic lines - including ODM's own forces resisting land reforms? You mean you failed to see where I listed ODM leaders as being among the forces likely to resist subjecting their own grabbed land to the National Land Commission's scrutiny of ownership or taxation assessments on the idle land? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You named the two Rutos, those of the KKK alliance –who to all purposes are out of the party. And Moi. Am holding you to high standards here. And you should be proud I accord you that respect. A few more top land-grabber names from the ODM side?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUOTE: After your ridiculous and fascitoid dismissal of the two writers linked by danielwaweru, I think you need to be called to order. ------- Lord, how did I miss this! In my view, Daniel Branch & Nicholas Cheeseman may be your piece of cheese but they ain’t authority in my own country’s history. I hope you get it. You and other wazungu (even if you hide under blackman handles) will neither fool nor hoodwink a lot of us Africans. You will not rewrite our own history as we experienced it! Stop dreaming fella! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my perception, your refutation of Branch and Cheeseman here, takes racialist tones [you and other wazungu]. I assumed waweru is a kenyan black, so I replaced the word racialist by fascist, which I understand as intra-colour discrimination. Your cheesy interplay on the name is also downright degradatory in this context. RIDICULOUS! Man Job, ait I hot on context!
I was not name-calling you in person. . It was your racially charged rejection I was qualifying. And I still insist that at the level at which you understand issues, there is absolutely no need for you to delve neither into the race nor sex of a correspondent on Jukwaa. However, can’t promise I wont break this rule myself! polemics may dictate it!
You miss the point in thinking the purpose of that vocabulary was to muzzle you, or bamboozle. They are pinpoint descriptions of an errant state of mind.
I read you more meticulously than you care to know. I remember on a separate thread coming across a hapless, dazed and prostrate correspondent, looking all charred and sooty after a royal roasting by a certain pundit named job who you may know or not! I am not too keen to enjoy his fate in that thread, so I engage you a sober and tenacious pugilist. For starters there is an introductory example of the kinds of analysis in that book by David and Cheeseman in that link. Read it. I haven’t re-read the book recently. But I had. You could be surprised foreigners have deeper insight into your history that you! In the same way a doctor would know more about the diseased condition of a patient's body than the patient him/herself!
Your projection of what history tells us about why the lancaster constitution failed, is thus correctly trashed by the danielwaweru on whom you pour so much scorn!
My handle is still the same, and as steady as waragi kasese, the ferari among waragis. So long.
|
|
|
Post by job on Aug 22, 2011 19:42:25 GMT 3
It's good the Prime Minister is finally waking up to take leadership on this matter. Uhuru Kenyatta had tactfully taken it upon himself to essentially rewrite the devolution structure - using the funding loophole ( via the public finance management bill). Unfortunately for him (Uhuru), his design couldn't mesh with the constitution-abiding proposals fronted by the Musalia-appointed Devolution Task Force (under Dr. Mutakha Kangu). I'm glad this important matter has seized the full attention of the PM. The only trouble I see here - yet again- is that the Prime Minister is trying to kick the can down the road...where upon contention will likely resurface later. As Adongo observed earlier, the Prime Minister should openly state that he doesn't harbour any wicked dreams of retention of more funds at the centre (at the expense of counties). A meagre 15% for counties is already too small a figure to start slicing off again. Splitting the public finance bill in piecemeal (as the PM and his committee suggest) may bring more focus into the issue but if it's being expediently done as a gimmick to phase-out the implementation into sijui 4-6 years (way after the 2012 elections), and long after public scrutiny starts waning, then our devolution aspirations may be under assault from all these folks. That could be freaking scary! My opinion - if this cabinet committee went outside the box right now, and brought together all stakeholders including the CIC, Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA), Treasury (MoF), Devolution Task Force (MoLG), and others, there would be less chance for parochialism and hidden interests prevailing. All cards would be exposed on top of the table (in full glare of media and public), and genuine resolution sought. There would be little room to hide certain cards under the table. Any keen observer knows this tussle is the likely reason why Kibaki (under prodding from Uhuru Kenyatta) has deliberately delayed announcing the new Director of Budget (DoB) - allegedly already picked (from horse-trading between the PM and President on the DoB & AG positions after the selection panel forwarded 3 names). If this DoB were to be appointed today, he/she would likely join the list of stakeholders like Micah Cheserem (Chair of CRA), the CIC, etc who are already crying foul over Uhuru Kenyatta's unilateral proposals under the public finance management bill. Needless to rehash, this is also the same reason why the term of the Devolution Task Force is not being extended (until this matter is resolved). None other than the PS - MoLG, Prof. Karega Mutahi, has told the Devolution Task Force to pack and go! Kibaki, Uhuru et al., don't wish to add voices opposed to their grand design to underfund counties (and retain more at the centre) coming to any negotiation table. In my opinion, this matter should not be postponed! No can should be kicked down the road. Bring everyone at the table - CIC, CRA, DoB, Devolution Task Force, MoF, and MoLG. The PM should have been more concerned about extending the term of the Devolution Task Force to ensure neutrality of voices from all sides. He should demand the DoB immediately appointed. All these folks should converge and iron this matter out in the open.
|
|
|
Post by job on Aug 23, 2011 23:09:07 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by job on Aug 28, 2011 12:30:27 GMT 3
Parliamentary G-7 (aka KKK) stalwarts should be aware that courts can strike out any legislation deemed unconstitutional.
It is now becoming clear when it comes to funding devolution, G-7 in the House has regrouped under Uhuru and Kimunya, fronting multiple amendments that dilute the constitutional criterion for funding counties.
They have for instance pounced on the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA) Bill, 2011, slowly chipping away the constitutional powers over allocation of revenue given to the CRA. They are handing those powers back to Treasury. It's not even surreptitious anymore -it's being openly argued in the House floor.
For instance, on Friday, the G-7 parliamentary mouthpieces (under instructions from Uhuru and Kimunya), introduced amendments to the CRA Bill 2011, ensuring that commissioners at CRA were part-time. Why are they afraid of full-time CRA Commissioners? Your guess is as good as mine - they want to undermine, stiffle, and downgrade the role of the CRA!
Lucky enough, the constitution was explicit enough in describing the big role of the CRA over revenue allocation; establishing its independence; and detailing its specific functions (thanks God to CoE).
The constitution will be the shield against any attempt at sabotage of this important commission. I hope the supreme court is watching - the CIC has already sounded alarm bells. These speedy amendments being rushed by the G-7 honchos need a lot of meticulous scrutiny.
Another amendment on the CRA Bill brought forth by the G-7, and vigorously argued (supported) by both Uhuru and Kimunya regards the secondment of staff from Treasury to the CRA.
Every Tom, Dick and Harry knows that the constitution asserts the independece of the CRA; giving it powers to hire its own staff independently.
Uhuru simply wants to interfere with AND control the CRA via Treasury-seconded proxies. CRA has not even been formed and Uhuru already wants to second his hirelings (aka saboteurs) there. This is outright interference that will threaten the independence of the CRA. This commission should be left to hire its own staff.
It's interesting watching these G-7 watermelons now quite busy in parliament plotting the dismanting of the brand new Katiba (they never fought for). Vigilance must be maintained to safeguards the new Katiba gains from these anti-reformist sharks.
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on Aug 29, 2011 1:24:48 GMT 3
muthamaki halali kabisa! My goodness is there amore nefarious character than this perpetually inebriated foul mouthed grass smoker?
Fighting wars at each and every front, trying to block reform. him and his sidekick the blue eyed' corrupt kimemia or what ever his name is.
This is where I miss Hon Miguna for he was an insider shouting louder and louder when the systems designed to deliver the KATIBA developed inertia.
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Aug 29, 2011 18:32:35 GMT 3
Can someone do this for me on this thread: post two links. 1. From Pambazuka.org --An article by Charles Abugre: IS THE IMF OBSTRUCTING KENYA'S DEVOLUTION? 2. NAIROBI STAR 24/08/11 BY Pheroze Norwojee: UHURU SEEKING TO DERAIL DEVOLUTION
[Ahoy! Kipfirimbi! are you there?! help a mate out, instead of bullying sensitive Merlin!
|
|
|
Post by job on Aug 29, 2011 22:46:28 GMT 3
Uhuru Seeking To Derail Devolution
Wednesday, 24 August 2011 00:06 BY PHEROZE NOWROJEE
Uhuru Kenyatta is preventing the implementation of the most vital part of the Constitution – devolution. He is doing this by withholding the funds for the counties. He says that he is withholding the money because that is one of the conditions laid down by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Another condition is that the Minister of Finance shall be the sole person deciding on payments to the counties.
How has Kenya agreed to these conditions that give total financial power to one man, and one ethnic group, over all other Kenyans in the 47 counties? The IMF and every Kenyan knows that this is exactly what the new Constitution has prohibited and is guarding against. Is it possible then that it was the Kenyan team itself that asked for these conditions to be imposed, because it would benefit some of them and their ethnic group? Were Kenyans with influence at the IMF, but long out of office in Kenya, made part of the team for such a purpose?
Uhuru is the same person who when faced with personal danger to himself at The Hague complained loudly, “Sovereignty! Kenya alone must decide the trials.” Yet when faced with constitutional danger to Kenya at the IMF he did not say, “Sovereignty! Kenya alone must decide the counties’ money.”
Uhuru says the IMF has decided that the counties will not be able to manage the monies they get. This is for the Constitution and not the IMF to decide. The Constitution prescribes: “county governments shall have reliable sources of revenue to enable them to govern and deliver services effectively.” (Art.175(b)). This is what Uhuru has to comply with. The IMF condition is void. The treaty with the IMF may be law, but by being the law, like any other law, it is subject to Art.2(2), Constitution : if it conflicts with the Constitution, which it does, the treaty is void to that extent. Uhuru does not have the power to change this provision, nor to agree with the IMF to do something that conflicts with the Constitution.
Likewise, the IMF condition that it is the Finance Minister who solely decides on monies to the counties is also contrary to the Constitution. Allocations are matters for the Budget and Parliament, and not for the Minister by himself. Devolution is critical to a de-ethnicized, democratic and economically fair Kenya. But, contrariwise, what Uhuru is doing 1. prevents the new Constitution from taking effect in respect of the counties; 2. attempts to reverse the democratic gains of the new Constitution; 3. prevents democratic local government from taking root; 4. brings back unfair tribal domination by one group over all others; and 5. perpetuates dynastic control of Kenya.
All this violates Art.174, Constitution. This says devolution is to promote democratic and accountable exercise of power. It is to foster national unity by recognizing diversity. It is to give powers of self-governance to the people and to enhance the participation of the people in the exercise of the powers of the State and in making decisions affecting them. It is to recognize the right of communities to manage their own affairs and further their development, and to protect and promote the interests and rights of minorities and marginalized communities.
It is to promote social and economic development in all the 47 counties and not just some of them, and to provide proximate and easily accessible and accountable services throughout Kenya. It is to ensure equitable sharing of national resources throughout Kenya, (not just in the areas which the President or Minister of Finance favours, nor to deprive any areas which they want to punish for not supporting them, nor to discriminate against any on an ethnic or other basis).
By being able to withhold moneys Uhuru defeats all these constitutional provisions. These were the major purposes of the long struggle for constitutional change. Uhuru is seeking to defeat this long struggle. Once devolution is in place, no President or Finance Minister will ever again be able to have one-man rule in Kenya like Kenyatta and Moi’s rule. Uhuru is seeking to bring back this type of rule.
This move against devolution reveals the true face of Uhuru’s 2012 campaign: it is to roll back the new Constitution and to return to the unchecked power and ethnic politics Jomo enjoyed from 1964 to 1978 and others from 1982 to 2002. Uhuru’s move against devolution is the most dangerous move against the new Constitution. All Kenyans must reject it. Loudly.
The writer is a lawyer.
|
|
|
Post by job on Aug 29, 2011 22:54:32 GMT 3
Is the IMF obstructing Kenya’s devolution process?
Charles Abugre 2011-08-18, Issue 545
There is a tense stand-off in Kenya between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Local Government, which is holding hostage critical laws that need to be passed to implement the generally acclaimed 2010 Constitution. These ministries differ sharply on how to regulate the management of public resources. They have submitted separate draft bills to the Constitutional
Implementation Commission (CIC) to be forwarded to parliament. The one from the Ministry of Finance (The Treasury) is an Integrated Bill covering the two levels of government – the national and the county. The Ministry of Local Government has put forward two related Bills, one specific to the financial management of the county government and the other – an Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations Bill – which aims to create mechanisms for ensuring coherence between the two levels of government in relation to the management of public finance.
This ministry opposes the single Integrated PFM Bill approach and argues strongly for a separate Bill to strengthen the devolution process and fears that the Integrated PFM approach is a stealthy way of re-centralising power. The Constitution of Kenya creates two levels of government which are independent of each other but who should ‘collaborate and cooperate’ for the public good – very much like the American political system.
The disagreements between these two ministries, both represented by Deputy Prime Ministers, is so sharp that the CIC felt compelled to refer the matter to the two principals of the coalition government, President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga. Word has it that although the principals were unable to reach an agreement they were perhaps leaning towards the Integrated Bill approach and therefore have ordered the two ministers to consolidate their drafts into a single Bill.
This apparent decision has severely irked Kenyan civil society and the taskforce put together to detail out the devolution process and whose advice informed the Bills submitted by the Ministry of Local Government. Their anger is based on the justifiable fear that the Treasury is actively seeking to roll back powers taken from them by the constitution’s strong focus on devolution, participation and service orientation.
If it is true that the two principals are converging around a single Integrated PFM Bill, this position invariably endorses the position that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has invested heavily in promoting, ever since the referendum which endorsed the constitution. Since at least September 2010, the IMF has pushed two issues related to Public Finance Management – the creation of Integrated Public Finance Management Bill and the creation of a Single Treasury Account. Both of these positions eventually found their way into the IMF Loan Agreement with the Government of Kenya as conditionalities (Structural Benchmarks) that attract penalties if violated without a formal waiver from the IMF Board. Treasury upheld these issues because they favour Treasury.
Together with other recommendations, the IMF has intervened in a manner that could be severely detrimental to the devolution process. The IMF’s wading into the constitution implementation process in the way in which they did is highly dangerous as it borders on crude political interference and is a grey area in the IMF’s mandate. I would argue that the IMF needs not be so blatantly anti-devolution in order to ensure that devolution does not create run-away expenditure and indebtedness that could derail macroeconomic stability. Kenyans need to know that behind the Treasury position is the heavy arm of the IMF. The IMF’s position on this should be out in the open and Kenyan citizens deserve to debate its merits.
HOW THE IMF INTERVENED
In early September 2010, barely a month after Kenyans brought their new Constitution into law following a successful referendum, an IMF mission came to town to begin preliminary discussions towards extending a credit facility to Kenya. Among others, the mission broached the idea of a single PFM Act. A follow-up mission took place in November to prepare the Government of Kenya (GoK) to present a loan request to the IMF Board.
The Letter of Intent drafted by this mission, signed by the Minister for Finance and the Governor of the Central Bank to the IMF executive director committed the GoK to present a single PFM Bill to parliament. This mission also proposed technical assistance to the Ministry of Finance to enable them prepare this bill. In January 2011, two parallel missions were in town, one to finalise the loan deal and the other a technical team to appraise and recommend a framework for Public Finance Management.
The final letter of intent signed by the Minister for Finance and the Central Bank Governor and addressed to Dominique Strauss Kahn, the then Managing Director of the IMF undertook, as part of their core conditions to deliver an Integrated PFM to parliament by end August and to adopt a single Treasury account. These conditions will be reviewed in September as part of other conditionalities that the Government of Kenya committed itself to. You can find these in the Kenya section of the IMF website.
The mission that provided technical assistance for the development of the Integrated PFM Bill submitted its report in March entitled ‘Kenya: Developing an Integrated Legal Framework for Public Financial Management’. The mission met a range of actors except the Devolution Taskforce. Subsequently the IMF provided technical assistance for a drafting group to transform the mission report into a Bill. The draft Bill that Treasury presented to the CIC is the product of these processes.
WHAT THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MISSION RECOMMENDED
The report of the mission was extensive and detailed. It outlined the key sections of an integrated PFM bill, what an integrated budget calendar should be; suggested what the legal framework of the County Government (what they called a sub-national government) should be; and made extensive and detailed recommendations that range from their interpretations of the powers given to the Treasury by the Constitution and many more.
This report leaves no one in doubt that the intention of the mission, and of the IMF, was (and is) to ensure that the powers of the Treasury are as enhanced as possible; that the flexibilities of the county government are as constrained as possible when it comes to the management of public finance and that the management of public finance is as centralised as is possible. The mission made very selective choice of principles of public finance outlined in the constitution, emphasising and amplifying those that are in consonance with the IMF’s beliefs and the mission’s biases and keeping mute or only mentioning in passing those principles they don’t quite like. A few of the mission’s biases and errors are worth mentioning.
THE ROLE OF THE MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN DEVOLUTION:
In the mission’s view local government ministry’s role is political and administrative aspects of devolution. With this characterisation, Devolution Taskforce was effectively boxed – it had no role in financial devolution.
ROLLING – BACK AND AMPLIFYING PERCEIVED POWER LOST BY THE TREASURY:
In virtually every aspect of public finance management the mission report seeks to curtail powers given by the constitution to other parts of government. In relation to Parliament’s role in budget making, it recommends ‘regulating changes that parliament can make to national budget’. For the counties it recommends ‘defining budget documents to be presented to the County assemblies, who should present , and changes that county assemblies can make’.
It also recommends that a county single account should be ‘prescribed by Treasury’ (national government). On borrowing it recommends that Treasury should ‘impose a golden rule on borrowing on the County’ and that authority to ‘grant guarantees on County borrowing should vested in the Treasury’. It proposes that Treasury should have oversight power over all accounting, auditing and procurement functions ‘within every county treasury’. They prefer that all accounting and auditing staff be employed by the Treasury.
They recommend that Treasury (national government) be vested with the power to ‘collect, consolidate, disperse and publish county level financial and non-financial performance information’… It recommends that the PFM Act ‘elaborate on the significant powers given to the Treasury to oversee the PFM system.’ There are loads and loads of these types of recommendations.
The mindset behind these types of recommendations is one of centralisation and central CONTROL. This in my view fundamentally undermines the spirit and letter of the constitution, the expectation by the millions of Kenyans who have suffered the consequences of centralised power that at long last power will be decentralised.
Selective amplification of financial management principles. The principles that the IMF report and which are reflected strongly in the draft Integrated Finance Management Bill choose to project are transparency, stability, fiscal responsibility and accountability. Missing across the document are those principles that make the Kenyan constitution stand out as unique, including the principle that PFM should be judged by its impact on wellbeing and equitable; the principle that the public have the right to know and to participate at all levels of public finance management; the principle that the management of public finance should be devolved and participatory.
Wherever ever one of these is mentioned it is claimed that they are general rather than specific principles. This is nonsense of course as any principle can be quantified only to some extent and the level of that extent depends on the effort one puts into quantifying it. The purpose is clear, to project those principles which sit well with the IMF and jettison those that do not conform with centralised management ethos and cohere with narrow purpose for public finance management
A fundamental misreading or deliberate undermining of the Constitution? In my view, the IMF has fundamentally misread the 2010 Constitution of Kenya in several respects. First, the term ‘sub-national government’ tends to refer a level of government that in terms of hierarchy is subservient to a higher hierarchy. The Kenyan constitution in my view is clear that there the sovereign power of the people is exercised at 2 levels of government – national and county (Article 1 (4) and that the government at these 2 levels are “distinct and inter-dependent and shall conduct their mutual relations on the basis of consultation and cooperation”(Article 6(2)). The mindset behind the draft Integrated PFM Bill is one that subjugates the County to the National. This is plainly unacceptable.
The principals may well want to avoid violating an IMF conditionality by suggesting an Integrated Bill. If so, this Bill will be a considerably voluminous one indeed and will take very tricky drafting in order to preserve the distinct powers of the County, spell out how the 2 levels will cooperate an collaborate without one subsuming the other and how the desire of the people for participatory, devolve, transparent and accountable government working solely to improve services and the quality of lives of the people, a Constitution they fought so hard to bring about, will be preserved.
But of course I recognise the IMFR’s need to ensure prudent management of public finance in order to preserve the monetary system, stable prices and exchange rates. Could this could be achieved without undermining the most ground-breaking constitution on the African continent? It will be a tragedy if the principals were to reach a consensus which unknowingly rolls back what the people fought for – devolved and accountable power.
KENYA’S OBLIGATIONS TO THE IMF
Kenya is a member of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It joined in February 1964. The IMF is a voluntary association, a bit like a credit union where members pool resources to bail each other out in times of trouble and for the greater good of all. The specific purpose of the IMF is to promote international cooperation on monetary affairs by enabling members to consult and collaborate on international monetary problems with the aim of bringing about ‘balanced growth of international trade, orderly economic growth and employment, with reasonable price stability’, including exchange rate stability. Cooperation also seeks to avoid a repetition of the competitive devaluation that contributed to the great depression in the 1930s. As a member of this credit union, Kenya knowingly submitted itself to play by its rules.
To ensure that its members comply with their obligations, the IMF is mandated by Article 4 of its Constitution to conduct periodic surveillance on their economic and financial policies and to provide advice on corrective measures. This is the so-called Article 4 Review. Countries may take or leave the advice, unless you are borrowing from it. Rich countries often politely acknowledge the advice and politely ignore them or if they feel annoyed enough, may even tell the IMF off as the George Bush era politicians in the US tended to do regularly.
However if a country is borrowing from the Fund, their flexibility to ignore advice is constrained by conditionalities that the governments undertake to fulfill. The undertaking, called a Letter of Intent, is often drafted by IMF staff and signed on behalf of the country by the Minister of Finance and the Central Bank Governor. Violating these conditions can be costly, including paying a fine. It can also be costly in terms of the country’s credit rating as the IMF plays the role of a credit rating agency for the poorest countries for whom the big private credit rating agencies find too unattractive to border with. Kenya is one year into a three-year loan from the IMF and is therefore bound by conditionalities they committed to.
THE IMF’S MANDATE
Once a country signs up to be an IMF member it has to recognise the IMF’s legitimate area of interest, i.e. to ensure that countries do not build up unsustainable imbalances in their fiscal (expenditure-revenue), monetary (money demand-money supply) and foreign (imports-exports) accounts. These three accounts feed into each other. Deficits in the fiscal account will have to be financed often from borrowing. Government borrowing from domestic sources can lead to unsustainable domestic debts, or contribute to inflation or may even undermine private investment and ultimately orderly economic growth.
Inflation does not only lead to hardships it also drives up the cost of loans and the cost of paying back loans through the effect on interest rates or the exchange rate, although mild inflation can also be good for domestic producers. Massive government deficits, according to IMF analysis, can also spill over into imports and if imports grow faster than exports (which is often the case in the short run), the Balance of Payments (BOP) deteriorates.
The deficit in the BOP will need to be plugged, usually through external borrowing, which if not kept within reasonable limits can risk a sovereign debt crisis of the type we are witnessing today in the United States and the European Union or of the type Africa witnessed in the heady days of structural adjustment programmes. When governments can’t pay their debts and do not wish to anger their creditors or risk not having access to further loans in the short run, they ultimately call in the IMF to help bail them out. Governments may also borrow from the IMF to boost their foreign reserves so as to protect the value of their currencies, sustain imports in times of unexpected dip in export earnings and assure creditors that they can pay their debt.
The IMF’s ultimate concerns are that: A country is able to pay its debts to its foreign creditors; that its domestic prices are stable in order to protect the value of capital – foreign and domestic – and that foreign capital has the freedom to move in and out. It is in relation to the first concern (ability to pay debts) that governments are made to prioritise external debt servicing in their budgets. This is why the IMF is sometimes referred to as debt collectors for foreign banks and governments.
It is in relation to the second objective (low inflation) that the IMF and others have pushed for Central Bank Independence and Central Banks have been encouraged to narrow down their policy objectives mainly towards managing inflation, often the expense of the ‘orderly growth and employment’ they are supposed to be looking after. It is in relation to the third objective (free capital movements) that the IMF has encouraged the liberalisation of the capital account and privatisation of state enterprises in many countries.
CONTESTED POLICY BIASES
It must be added that although there is some agreement among economist broadly about what is not good – unsustainable debts, very high inflation and sustained inflationary expectations, large fiscal deficits etc. Disagreements abound when it comes to the details of how much of what is bad or even how best to get to what may be good. The IMF has too often got it wrong promoting austerity in economic downturns. The IMF has also changed its tune on policy matters too many times.
For example, pushing austerity and liberalisation of capital controls on poor countries, recommending the exact opposite to rich countries went they went into crisis, and reverting to original form when marginal European countries like Greece, Iceland and Ireland went into crisis. But the greatest criticism of the IMF is the fact their policies fail far too often to bring about the expected ‘orderly growth and employment’. Instead they make the poor pay to rescue, or sustain the profits of, bankers and other creditors. Preserving the monetary system often tends to be at the cost of livelihoods of the poor and social harmony in general.
CROSSING BOUNDARIES AND BEING DISPROPORTIONATE
There are two key points here. First, the IMF has a legitimate right to take measures to ensure that governments manage their public finance in a manner that is consistent with their obligations as members of the IMF. The second is that, be that as it may the steps it takes must satisfy two conditions. The first condition is that those steps are squarely within its mandate. The second condition is that the steps taken or proposed must be proportional to the Fund’s purpose. Under Kenya’s 2010 Constitution, there is a third precondition which is that the decision making process must be transparent and participatory.
I will argue that in relation to the manner in which it intervened on the power relations issues in the management of Kenya’s public finance under the 2010 Constitution, the IMF may have stepped into or even beyond the grey area of its mandate and that many of the recommendations of its technical mission which have guided Treasury’s position on the PFM bill, may also have over-stepped the boundaries of proportionality.
MEDDLING IN POLITICS?
The IMF’s role in ‘governance’ matters is contentious, so much so that an Executive Board Guidance had to be established in 1997 to guide the Fund in its dealings with member governments. In this Guidance Note, the Board upheld the view that the primary concern of the Fund is with macroeconomic stability, external viability, and orderly economic growth in member countries. Therefore, the Fund’s involvement in governance should be limited to economic aspects of governance.
The contribution that the Fund can make to good governance should be in relation to two areas: (1) improving the management of public resources through reforms covering public sector institutions (e.g., the treasury, central bank, public enterprises, civil service, and the official statistics function), including administrative procedures (e.g., expenditure control, budget management, and revenue collection); (2) supporting the development and maintenance of a transparent and stable economic and regulatory environment conducive to efficient private sector activities (e.g., price systems, exchange and trade regimes, banking systems and their related regulations).
‘Within these areas of concentration, the Fund should focus its policy advice and technical assistance on areas of the Fund’s traditional purview and expertise i.e. issues such as institutional reforms of the treasury, budget preparation and approval procedures, tax administration, accounting, and audit mechanisms, central bank operations, and the official statistics function. Similarly, reforms of market mechanisms would focus primarily on the exchange, trade, and price systems, and aspects of the financial system. In the regulatory and legal areas, Fund advice would focus on taxation, banking sector laws and regulations, and the establishment of free and fair market entry (e.g., tax codes and commercial and central bank laws).
The Guidance Note was categorical that ‘the Fund’s judgments should not be influenced by the nature of a political regime of a country, nor should it interfere in domestic or foreign politics of any member’.
Applied to the Kenyan case, the Fund clearly had the mandate to give advice on all the aspects of public finance management above. It should give that advice in the political context in which it operates. That political context, as defined by the constitution, includes a unique situation of 2 levels of government each independent of the other, and none subjugated to the other but who must collaborate and cooperate t bring about responsible management of public finance based on the principles outlined in Chapter 12 of the constitution.
The IMF team failed to appreciate this uniqueness and therefore sought actively to create a political regime different from that outlined in the constitution. The IMF team may have over-stepped their boundaries but actively seeking to re-write power relations among different parts of government as well as entities created by the constitution. Their advice tantamount to promoting centralisation of decision making and central control over public resource against the Constitutional ethos of devolution and participation.
Could the IMF’s desire for fiscal prudence and stability be achieved without undermining devolution? There is no reason why not. The devolution taskforce provided one mechanism to achieve that which is the Inter-governmental fiscal relations Act – the body that brings together the key actors in the management of public finance to agree parameters, define reporting and coordinating and collaborating mechanisms for the larger good.
There is no particular reason to assume that consensus could not be reached through this structure favouring prudent management, including the management of debt whilst being consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution. The IMF Mission that advised Treasury chose the lazy route of not engaging with the political structure as it is but rather seeking to create a political structure which the people rejected but which seems consistent with their values of financial management.
Is there the need for more than one Act to regulate public finance management? In my humble opinion, the answer is YES, for the simple reason that the County Government Structure is new. It requires new structures, new ways of doing things, new planning and budget processes that are consistent with the expectations of participatory and accountable governance.
The management of money is what will make or break the devolution process and the expectations of Kenyan citizens for transparent, participatory and service oriented government. It will take detailed crafting to deliver these expectations whilst ensuring prudent resource management. This is what the Devolved Government PFM Bill delivers rather impressively. The difficulty of simply trying to pull the two Bills together is the fact that they are derived from different mind-sets about governance – one is centralising power, the other is dispersing power. Something has to give and as is clear in the draft Integrated Bill, centralisation trumps.
If a government based on devolution and the dispersal of power is to be given a chance, the IMF’s role in political horse-trading in Kenya should be curtailed.
BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS * Charles Abugre is the Africa Regional Director of the UN Millennium Campaign. The opinions expressed in this article are entirely personal and should not be attributed to the United Nations.
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Aug 29, 2011 23:54:33 GMT 3
Wasn't the onus on our Treasury to "educate" the IMF mission on our new constitutional order? Don't we have a legal department within Treasury that could've negotiated with them rather than relying on UK who was probably red eyed & hungover? These talks are supposed to be a 2 way street of give & take. Sounds like UK liked what he heard so he bent over backwards to accomodate the IMF gang. Begging bowl in hand & we still dare to call ourselves a sovereign nation...
|
|
|
Post by Fahari on Aug 30, 2011 0:20:54 GMT 3
Can someone do this for me on this thread: post two links. 1. From Pambazuka.org --An article by Charles Abugre: IS THE IMF OBSTRUCTING KENYA'S DEVOLUTION? 2. NAIROBI STAR 24/08/11 BY Pheroze Norwojee: UHURU SEEKING TO DERAIL DEVOLUTION [Ahoy! Kipfirimbi! are you there?! help a mate out, instead of bullying sensitive Merlin!OK it appears the first tutorial was not very effective and since I believe in the adage teach a man how to fish....... here goes Links - you have two options Option 1 Copy paste the address then Highlight the address you pasted Click on the link button {third button second row} The same would apply for quotes {second button second row} and you tube videos {first button second row} Option 2 A bit detailed but more versatile: To manually insert web links using url tags, you type the following code: I will split the code because the software converts it into a link a while I want it to remain as code Type 1. url=" "2. enclose it within [] brakets 3. insert you web address between the quotation marks 4. Use a phrase to describe the link after the brackets or just write 'click here" 5. Type /url enclose within brackets []For the article you requested here goes: the article you requested
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Aug 30, 2011 18:37:54 GMT 3
JOB & FAHARI Thank you amigos! I promise to take sometime off the lorry wheel and get comfortable with linkage. It is starting to look mighty careless of me!
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 2, 2011 19:03:33 GMT 3
Quoting Abugre: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Word has it that although the principals were unable to reach an greement they were perhaps leaning towards the Integrated Bill approach and therefore have ordered the two ministers to consolidate their drafts into a single Bill.
This apparent decision has severely irked Kenyan civil society and the taskforce put together to detail out the devolution process and whose advice informed the Bills submitted by the Ministry of Local Government. Their anger is based on the justifiable fear that the Treasury is actively seeking to roll back powers taken from them by the constitution’s strong focus on devolution, participation and service orientation.
If it is true that the two principals are converging around a single Integrated PFM Bill, this position invariably endorses the position that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has invested heavily in promoting, ever since the referendum which endorsed the constitution. Since at least September 2010, the IMF has pushed two issues related to Public Finance Management – the creation of Integrated Public Finance Management Bill and the creation of a Single Treasury Account. Both of these positions eventually found their way into the IMF Loan Agreement with the Government of Kenya as conditionalities (Structural Benchmarks) that attract penalties if violated without a formal waiver from the IMF Board. Treasury upheld these issues because they favour Treasury. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the author is right......
So Uhuru Kenyatta and professor Ndung'u [Governor of the Central], and the toplayer of men who run the finances of the state of Kenya, let the IMF forge bills that dictate the future of Kenya on the central issue of devolution. And they committed the state by signing an agreement with IMF which accepts conditionalities based on the same. In other words, they surrendered budgetary autonomy and fiscal independence of the state of Kenya. Mother IMF has to give a nod at every juncture before little boy Kenya can buy some asprin for malaria-prone Wanjiku.
Take 2: The parliament of Kenya in some cases took less that 2 hours debate to pass the record-breaking 12 bills last week. Thinking about the amount of junk and landmines that may surface later!
Take 3. Ralph Tuju and Ken Peter have declared their candidacies this week, without either visiting the issue of autonomy and the importance of this IMF bill which holds that principle to ransom, and upholds the old order which the referendum is pledged to abolish. I am not surprised clown Tuju missed it, but fresh-face Ken being that dumb or neglectsome! a surprise to me.
But I have this bile too, fellow Jukwaaists, to spil on you!
From the majority of posts I read here, there seems to be a major consensus that Uhuru Kenyatta is a bumbling incompetent buffoon, far out of his depth at finance. So far so good. But, with a bit of surprise, since I hold Jukwaa minds high, I have noticed I am about the only one to assert that the performance of the equally drunken Luo prince Oburu, at the same department, leaves everything to be desired, and is as sleepwalkish as that of his fellow prince Muigai K. I have read folks on Jukwaa coin terms like Uhuruto to derogate a certain alliance, but I have not seen the same burst of creative vehemence in the analysis of the OBUHURU pact at finance. In my opinion, this duo of princess, under whose watch the IMF usurped budgetary direction of the Kenyan consitution ahead of its full operation, needs some of the most distinct exposures. And distinguished hostility. Waziri zero, If I re-write benga lady Linet Aluoch of baba zero fame!
Sawa. UK is PNU and that is a usual suspect on planet Jukwaa. But if competence were to be a benchmark on the ODM side, and it should be If I am to believe the import of job's posts, then Oburu should have been removed from finance during the reshuffle. I am therefore convinced, that any trashing of UK at finance that excuses Oburu's equal ineffectuality, is dishonest, unbalanced and, dare I say, reminiscent of the primordial blind spot in current Luo academia under the spell of nationalist projects!
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Sept 2, 2011 19:17:40 GMT 3
jakaswanga,
I don't know why sometimes you have to triviliaze even important discussions like the issue being raised here on devolution. What has Oburu got to do with the attempts to sabotage devolution as was passed in the new constitution?
Any basic understanding of the power and governance structure in Kenya should inform any sane person that assistant ministers are the most useless positions ever created in the Kenyan cabinet. Don't tell me you do not know that because that will be a frightening thought.
Assistant ministers do not attend cabinet meetings, they do not formulate any policies in their ministries, they have no staff answerable to them except may be for the office messenger. All they do when they get a chance is to may be fill in and answer questions. So why would any sensible person expect the assistant minister for finance to be involved in negotiations with IMF?
I don't care much for Oburu and if you want a fight with him that is your business but for godsakes let people address this problem of devolution and the attempts by State House to sabotage devolution without trivialities and pettiness that just diverts focus real issues. I hope that is not asking for too much from you. You can start a thread about "Luo academia" whatever that is. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 2, 2011 19:34:57 GMT 3
Hi Adongo There are many issues raised in the above posting of mine. You can ask yourself why Raila tended to go with Kibaki on the STA [single treasury account] and the other IMF inserts. Okay, Oburu is zero as assistant minister. How about big brother signing to this dissolution of the devolution clause. Maybe if you understood what Luo academia is, you would have seen the thrust of that question in my post!
|
|
|
Post by job on Sept 12, 2011 21:47:23 GMT 3
Looks like ODM, in the interest of not ruffling feathers, has opted to let Uhuru have his way on this dilute-devolution-clauses crusade.
Kenyans may have to contend with having to raise local taxes to support counties. For 47 county governments to share 15% of Uhuru's definition of revenue - which is Kshs 634. billion ($7.5 billion), as per 2011 figures - the county governments will have to split Kshs. 95 billion. That's an annual allocation of Kshs 2 billion per county, and not Kshs 3 billion per county as earlier envisaged.
Counties may end up forcefully agitating to collect property, entertainment and other taxes approved. That might be all cool and dandy in counties like Mombasa, Narok and Nairobi which have many significant sources of revenue from permits, tourism, and other levies, but a majority of county governments will not be self sufficient - considering the responsibilities bestowed to them constitutionally.
The truth therefore - is that these county governments will have to consider how to obtain new revenue streams outside of Uhuru's ring-fenced Exchequer. I can also almost bet that if we have the same Treasury post 2012, they will never guarantee loans that county governments may seek ( after approval by county assemblies).
The only option left for such county governments, is - your guess is as good as mine - raise local taxes to support the county governments themselves. Mashinani folks should prepare to cough more from their meagre earnings. Be ready to share with your county government, a portion of your maize, coffee, sugarcane, and other earnings. It is coming in just a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 13, 2011 20:25:13 GMT 3
1. Looks like ODM, in the interest of not ruffling feathers, has opted to let Uhuru have his way on this dilute-devolution-clauses crusade. 2. CHARLES ABUGRE ON PAMBAZUKA:if a government based on devolution and the dispersal of power is to be given a chance, the IMF’s role in political horse-trading in Kenya should be curtailed.
I can now report [from a good placed source in Brussels] that the IMF had meetings [as in consulted] with two Kenyan presidential hopefuls in New York in the past 12 months. My secure guess would put the names of Kalonzo and Raila to that. But I do not discount Karua who visited the US too, early this year I think, but I would reason it is unlikely that the the technicalities of authoring financial bills would be on the table with her. In the rule, these kind of meetings are termed routine. Organisations like the IMF want to get a close feel of those who influence policy, and whom in future they could even be dealing with more, in yet to be occupied powerful portfolios. Winning them over is a home run. Some of these meetings are also hard-nosed softening up exercises. Mohamad Mohathir [then president and finance minister of Malaysia] was the whistle-blower who gave the most candid report on these meetings: exercises in coercion and intimidation for those who come from small, economically insignificant third world nations.* The consequences of not ascribing to the IMF agenda are so painted, [total financial and economic collapse due to an orchestrated financial and investment asphyxiation] that no other option becomes worthy of attention. NB: it is not too difficult to stumble upon Mohamad Mahathir and the IMF articles, through googling. * *try this one for instance
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Sept 13, 2011 20:33:49 GMT 3
Yet no one finds it odd, DSK had a tryst with an African maid in Manhattan? Get real, folks...
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 13, 2011 20:44:06 GMT 3
b6k, I beg your pardon about that bit on folks getting real. What is the grit or the point you want to make?
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Sept 13, 2011 21:09:05 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 15, 2011 19:42:39 GMT 3
Here is a comment worth ruminating on meanwhile by topical commentator Mwarangethe, as the plot continues to thicken. kumekucha.blogspot
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 16, 2011 14:08:50 GMT 3
Devolution is an obligationThursday, 15 September 2011 00:09 BY MUSALIA MUDAVADI The curtain has closed on the work of the Task Force on Devolved Government but the real work now begins. The TFDG has presented its final Report with recommendations and a draft Sessional Paper to guide the implementation of the devolved system of government. The Report and the draft Sessional Paper are of high probity and should help Kenyans think through the meaning of devolution; what is required in the implementation process; the policy benchmarks we ought to look out for; and the legal framework necessary for the devolved system of government as envisaged in the Constitution. We now have a policy reference document that we will use to implement the new devolved system of government. I appointed the TFDG on October 22 2010 to meet the decision of the Fourth Cabinet Meeting of August 17 2010, that ministries draft Bills to implement the Constitution. Due to scarce resources, it did not get down to real business until February this year. And in record time by April, it had produced a very detailed and thoughtful Interim Report for discussion by Kenyans. Since then, the TFDG continued to surprise us with its creative proposals and originality in spite of extremely tight schedules. Six enabling bills were presented in August and the new Urban Areas and Cities Act 2011 is the brainchild of this team. With this law, our cities and towns will be professionally managed with a focus of making them engines of economic growth for counties. This will be through proper planned infrastructure and service delivery. The other proposed bills on devolution are on their way to Parliament. Indeed, on matters of draft legislation on devolution, we are ahead of schedule on devolution bills by six months. Among the crucial bills on Devolved Government, county finance bills and transition to devolved government bills. These bills are critical because under the Constitution, devolution is reflected in every aspect of management of public affairs. It is therefore important that mechanisms for transiting from the current system are in place before the next elections to avoid a constitutional crisis. I am confident that all implementation agencies will make these bills a priority and that they will become law by the end of this year. This should give us enough lead-time for transition mechanisms as we prepare for county governments. In the last eleven months the TFDG worked tirelessly to generate implementation mechanisms, its outputs have caused a lot of interest and heated debates. This was as expected and indeed required because, quite frankly, devolution is the constitution. Debate was also necessary as a constitutional requirement on public participation. In this regard, I noted two strands of arguments motivating the debates. First, there were those who made argument because they had genuinely not been able to internalise the full meaning of devolution until the TFDG shed light on these matters when it released the Interim Report. The debate showed that all public officers and the public need to be sensitised and trained to appreciate the new devolved system of governance. The TFDG has gone out of its way to draft a civic education programme and I call upon everyone of goodwill to help us roll it out. With the support of our development partners, an Expert Committee will help us implement this programme in the medium term. The advantage of doing this is that, we shall not lose the capacity, institutional memory and momentum already set by the Task Force. Second, there are those who understand quite well the import of devolution but have decided to prevaricate in self-denial. Fear of the unknown and personal insecurity cloud the ability to act resolutely. Inertia has become another word for subtle attempts to claw back what the constitution promises Kenyans. I caution that reform is truly here and we cannot postpone the promise of devolution made to Kenyans in the constitution. Devolving power, resources and responsibilities to our people is not conditional; it is an obligation and a duty we must undertake with all the resolve and honesty we can muster. On devolution, we must not allow ourselves to falter as we continue consulting on pending issues, especially with respect to matters of finance. Finance will be the fault line upon which devolution will succeed or fail. I must say that whatever is our personal disposition towards devolution, no matter how insecure we feel; it is important to ensure that any decision we make towards implementation is only guided by obedience to the letter and spirit of the constitution. Devolution is the most transformative pillar of the constitution we adopted. Devolution underpins and permeates every chapter of the constitution. To assume that we can tinker with certain aspects of devolution during implementation and still hope to harvest the benefit of subsidiarity is foolhardy. We should therefore avoid any attempts to dilute any aspect of devolution during implementation. Our future prospects as a nation are intrinsically linked to the promise of devolution; that of placing government, development and decision-making in the hands of the sovereign citizens. For this reason, the constitution decrees that citizens are their own agents for development and transformation rather than objects or recipients of dictates from unaccountable state authorities. Any deviation can only subvert, with unfathomable consequences, the hard-worn democratic gains. Hon. Musalia Mudavadi is Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Local Government. - and ODM Deputy Party Leader
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Dec 11, 2011 13:59:02 GMT 3
Suddenly everybody is shocked at how deep the corruption really goes about Land in Kenya [Kibaki , Orengo ]!. Reminds me of the day Kenyans expressed shock and outrage when the doors to the dungeons of Nyati house were opened! A torture headquarters in the center of the city! Woi! Nobody literate who really didn't know all the time! I wonder whether professor Lumumba, watching, recognises how much he failed. Trying to sort it out by demonstration! a top clown!
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 9, 2012 18:00:48 GMT 3
CABINET APPROVES CRITICAL LAND BILLS
CABINET MEDIA BRIEF
The Cabinet has today approved three crucial bills that will overhaul and streamline land management and administration in the country. The Cabinet approved the bills at a meeting Chaired by President Mwai Kibaki at State House, Nairobi.
The bills approved for publication and onward transmission to parliament for debate and approval are;
1. NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION BILL 2012.
The bill gives effect to the Constitution of Kenya 2010 that established the National Land Commission. The bill provides for the functions of the commission, qualifications and procedures for the appointment of members of the commission.
It also gives effect to the objects and principles of devolved government in land management and administration. Functions of the commission include alienation of public land on behalf of and approval of the national and county government, monitoring registration of all rights and interests in land and developing and maintaining an effective land information management at both the national and county levels.
The Commission will have the mandate to review all grants or dispositions of public land to establish propriety or legality within five years. The commission shall consist of a Chairman and members who will serve for a non-renewable term of 6 years.
The Bill also establishes the County Land Management Boards. Each of the boards shall consist of at least three members but not more than nine. Two of the members who shall be ex-officio shall be nominated by the governor, one of whom shall be a physical planner.
A Member of the board unless ex-officio, shall be appointed for a single non-renewable term of five years. The constitution of the board shall take into consideration gender equality and be sensitive to the county’s ethnic composition
2. LAND BILL 2012.
The bill will give effect to Article 68 of the constitution, to revise, consolidate and nationalize land laws, to provide for the sustainable administration and management of land and land based resources.
This will apply to all land declared as public, private and community by the constitution. The bill consolidates various laws on land into one substantive law governing land in Kenya. The bill vests public land in the national government to be administered in trust for the people of Kenya by the National Land Commission as required by the constitution.
3. LAND REGISTRATION BILL 2012.
The bill gives effect to Article 68 of the constitution. It provides for the revision, consolidation and rationalization of the law governing the registration of title to land, regulation of dealings in registered land and to give effect to the principles and objects of devolved government in land registration. The bill requires the National Land Commission to establish land registries in all the counties.
Today’s Cabinet meeting also approved restructuring of the balance sheet of the Kenya Railways Corporation. This entails the conversion of the debts owed by Kenya Railways to the government into equity. The move will relieve Kenya Railways its heavy burden and give the corporation a stronger capital base.
PPS 9TH February 2012
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Jun 29, 2015 20:19:12 GMT 3
A SMALL BLOW UP BETWEEN THE CENTER AND THE PERIPHERYAnd devolution came! The cabinet secretary responsible was named Anne Waiguru. But it is the money one should follow, whether in crime or politics. And in africa, Politics is usually crime. So here is an idea of how the thieves are quarelling about money. they can not even agree whether on a certain date by a certain time a certain amount has been transferred or not! (that should mean the records can not be traced!) ============================== In line with the gazetted disbursement schedule!? Kamau Thugge: how about this gazetted schedule was UNILATERALLY determined? No? Obvously Oparanya forgot the ' gazetted schedule' which slots Kamau Thugge's bank orders! or That gazetted schedule is a clever bureaucratic insertion, to buy time while the billions are still being used elsewhere, wherefore Oparanya's instincts are bull's eye: PAY INTEREST!A dispute with depth!
|
|