Forbes provided the following reason for Uhuru’s drop-off: “Kenyatta is an heir to one of Kenya’s largest land holdings. Between him and his family, they own over 500,000 acres of Kenyan land easily worth hundreds of millions of dollars. But here’s the problem: The Kenyatta family is a very large one and it’s not certain at the moment that Uhuru, who aims to become president during the country’s elections next year, is the principal custodian of these assets. Hence, he’s been dropped off the list.”
I feel vindicated because I challenged Forbes’ criteria of selecting Uhuru Kenyatta without pinpointing his exact share of wealth within the extended Kenyatta family estate. Moreover, Forbes’ categorization was questionable on ethical grounds since it should not rank current or former presidents, rulers and dictators because of the need to distinguish between wealth generated through business and that influenced by political power. Uhuru’s wealth is grounded on largesse, given that his father, Jomo Kenyatta, was Kenya’s first president whose means of wealth generation remains suspect, especially the ownership of 500,000 acres of land. Uhuru is a political leader by virtue of his position as Deputy Prime Minister and the then Finance minister and KANU chairman during the period of Forbes’ listing.
In response to a comment on Forbes’ website in 2011 as to why Uhuru Kenyatta was listed yet he is a politician, editor Kerry A. Dolan answered: “We do include politicians on the list of 40 Richest Africans (and on all lists of wealthy people that we do at Forbes) if we can confidently prove that they own the assets we are valuing.” This contradicts their set rules about how those in power can influence the acquisition of wealth. In a 2009 WikiLeaks cable, the former American ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger, stated that Uhuru inherited wealth which was acquired by his father through corruption. Why did Forbes not investigate this?
What about the serious crimes against humanity that Uhuru Kenyatta is facing at the International Criminal Court? He is a prime suspect in Kenya’s 2007-08 post-election violence. This matter was already public by the time Forbes’ drew the list in 2011. Reporter Mfonobong Nsehe, who was basically covering the Kenyan case, should have researched more, rather than just getting excited by the amount of money ‘owned’ by Uhuru.
If Kenyan industrialist Manu Chandaria was not listed last year and this year because Forbes’ reporters could not determine his net worth since his business empire is tied to vast family members, wasn’t this criterion applicable then to Uhuru Kenyatta? A year later, the same Forbes reporters have proven that their selection and ranking was faulty and struck him off.
An interesting rebuttal to Forbes’ 2011 list was published by Otuma Ongalo in the Standard newspaper on November 26, 2011. Titled “Identifying continent’s richest is wild goose chase”, its core argument was: “The initiative by Forbes Africa is noble but the real truth of who owns Africa in general and Kenya specifically will never be known if it simply scratches on the surface and relies on rumours. The method used to arrive at findings leaves many yawning gaps while the outlined sources of information are clearly wanting. Forbes missed an opportunity to unravel the otherwise very interesting topic. You do not use the West’s yardstick to assess riches in Africa.”
As Forbes’ reporters continue with their annual listing of Africa’s wealthiest persons, let us hope that the methodology will improve and ethical considerations will be applied stringently. On the whole, the dropping of Uhuru Kenyatta’s name from the 2012 list is a welcome relief especially to Kenyans because Uhuru’s inclusion on the list amounted to a glorification of wealth stolen from the Kenyan public.
Jared Odero
About the Author
Thanks Jared for bringing down Uhuru Kenyatta from the Forbes List. This thing has been eating me up because our stolen wealth was being used to show that this icc criminal suspect is rich. It was a job well done. Keep it up. Kenyans must not accept evrything coming from the west.
WONDERFUL JOB FOR BRINGING DOWN THIS ICC SUSPECT FROM THE LIST OF RICHEST MEN IN AFRICA. TRUE THE SAID WEALTHY IS ILL-GOTTEN AND ALSO BLOODY MONEY! I BELIEVE UHURU SHOULD APPEAR IN THE LIST OF MOST BRUTAL AND CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS IN AFRICA , THE LIKES OF MILITARY RULERS OF NIGERIA-SANI ABACHA.
KSB: Next time, write in lower case. Writing in upper case in online forums is the same as screeming to make a point.
ICC Is About Entrenching Rule Of Law, Accountability
November 28, 2012 – 00:00 — BY NDUNGU WAINAINA
In the last two years, human rights defenders have been attacked with commentaries and articles in press and other media outlets. The attacks are full of vitriol, hollowness and unwarranted personalized vendetta.
This is not surprising. It is reaffirmation of the impact of their work and what they stand for. Since December 15, 2010, there has been a strong defence of innocence of one of the International Criminal Court indictee, Uhuru Kenyatta.
These individuals, some of whom I name below, have constantly been labelled “hypocrites or liars of democracy and agents of local and international dark forces”. They are further accused of “subversion of will of the people”.
We have seen a newspaper (not The Star) writing an apology to George Soros after publishing a malicious article against him and others.
This particular newspaper refused to publish a rejoinder to this offensive article by one of the persons adversely mentioned in that particular article.
When a newspaper through an agent carries an offensive statement about you and refuses to give you a chance of rebuttal, it affirms that position.
We all need to fully appreciate that liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there is no constitution, no law, no court can save it.
Prof Makau Mutua, Maina Kiai, George Kegoro, Ndung’u Wainaina, John Githongo, Muthoni Wanyeki, Paul Muite, Hassan Omar among others have firm convictions, and values they stand for.
These are outstanding human rights defenders and professionals in their own right. They have vigorously defended credibility and reputation of their motherland and repudiated attempts at demeaning and bringing Kenya’s image into disrepute.
My memory fails me not. Uhuru Kenyatta has never been part of democratic transformation of Kenya. He has never stood for and advocated for a just society.
He belonged to the despotic regime of Moi and Kanu enjoying the privilege, glamour and warmth of State House since his birth. Earlier he had been noted at the formation of Democratic Party.
Uhuru was handpicked and nominated by Moi as MP and shortly elevated as Minister for Local Government. Mark Too was bitterly forced to relinquish his seat for Uhuru.
Indeed Uhuru tried initially to unsuccessfully to vie for Gatundu South seat (he later won). Moi further made Uhuru, a presidential candidate project.
It must be understood very well that we are not opposing the individual Uhuru Kenyatta, but the watershed effects of any such a person ascending to the pivotal position of the presidency and its real effects on the domestic interests as it comes into interplay with the international relations. Kenya deserves the right leadership, policies, institutions and politics.
Rule of law is pivotal to inclusive development. The benefits of rule of law adhering country would be indicated by the following: enhanced certainty, predictability and security; restricted discretion of government officials including reduced willfulness and arbitrariness; maintained peaceful social order through legal norms; economic development based on existence of certainty, predictability and security; and fundamental justice is realized equally as law is applied equally to everyone citizen and in accordance with its terms.
Uhuru’s presidency may be a good idea in ordinary circumstances. But under the current circumstances, it is a long shot deep in the sea.
The fate of Kenya cannot be tied to an individual. He must back off and let Kenya match forward. Kenya is not a private enterprise. It is a country of 40 million people with equal rights and liberties anchored on core national values of Article 10 of the Kenyan Constitution.
Further, such a presidency would recreate the big-man’s syndrome and police-militarised state for its survival. It is irresponsible and selfish to engage in political bankruptcy of ethno-nationalism and tie the country to such retrogressive politics.
If you are a believer in democratic practice and norms why destroy political tolerance and pluralism in your backyard? This is political demagoguery and tyranny. It has no place in the society that gallant Kenyans are working hard to shape and build.
Uhuru had an opportunity to be official leader of opposition. He, however, found it politically convenient, to abandon that office to play ethnic politics.
This is despite his earlier dismissal of Mwai Kibaki as hands-off president. This makes one to query whether Uhuru has ever had a consistent position on anything.
Therefore, accusations against human rights defenders are ludicrous and full of amnesia. History never lies. That is why Uhuru shivers whenever historical facts are unveiled.
I strongly support ICC for it fills a crucial vacuum. ICC is about defending the rule of law and promoting accountability as a future deterrence.
Government of Kenya deployed political strategy of defeating justice and accountability. It abandoned victims after political elite shared the political power spoils.
Victims deserve justice and reparations. Uhuru Kenyatta got Deputy Prime Minister position, a position he has refused to resign from despite confirmation of international crimes charges and clear legal provisions of Public Officers’ Ethics Act 2003.
There are those who find it vintage to raise presumption of innocence as defence. Presumption of innocence, however, as a principle is however an administration of criminal justice principle.
It means you cannot be convicted until you are properly heard. It does not carry with it a right to demean a national institution like presidency when you have such charges that disturb the conscience of humanity on your head.
African leaders engage in peer protectionism policy. They never set up credible judicial mechanisms to vigorously prosecute their criminals.
Instead, they invest heavily in shielding criminals despite massive suffering of their victims. Essentially, this fits into the grand scheme to manipulate ICC process.
This too leads to something else: Its most coveted outcome is elections’ results. Thereafter, attack and overthrow the Constitution and its attendant gains. Kenya will never revert to personalized dictatorial rule.
ICC judges have provided all due process, fair and transparent process to Uhuru to defend and exonerate himself. Why then engage in political vendetta and unhelpful attack against ICC?
Individual criminal responsibility cannot be converted and packaged as national responsibility and guilt. Forty million Kenyans are not on trial. Neither is government of Kenya. Therefore, Uhuru is not Kenya!
The individuals being demonised have stood firm against misrule and derogation of rights and freedoms of citizens. They have taken painful and right decisions to restore and re-establish a prosperous Kenya with justice, equality and rule of law. The rights and freedoms that Uhuru Kenyatta is freely enjoying today are courtesy of these individuals’ sacrifice.
Because of the unrelenting struggle for fair and just society, Kenya has a progressive Constitution. The nascent democracy must be guarded against all threats and perils.
The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to every citizen with enshrined enforcement mechanisms. These fundamental rights reflect the right to equality and foster social equality by empowering the citizens to be free from any form of coercion or restriction by the state or private individuals.
The judiciary is constitutionally endowed with the responsibility of safeguarding the rule of law and constitutionalism. Government must be democratic and based on certain non-negotiable core values. It is the duty of everyone to maintain this spirit. Otherwise, justice and dedication to rule of law collapses.
Writer is Executive Director, International Center for Policy and Conflict
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-97536/icc-about-entrenching-rule-law-accountability
Kikuyus eating Kikuyus alive >Is this cannibalism in Uhuru Kenyattas backyard?>>Z>
Nubians in Kenya: A People Denied
Despite a long history in Kenya, Nubians struggle to be recognised as Kenyans and to enjoy the rights and support than come with citizenship.
Article | 22 February 2013 – 4:31pm | By Rachuonyo Duncan
Nairobi, Kenya:
For over a century, Kenya has been home to members of the Nubian ethnic group. Originally from Nuba, a region located along the River Nile in northern Sudan and southern Egypt, many Nubians were brought to Kenya in the early 1890s to serve as soldiers in the British Army. At the time Kenya was under British colonial rule as the British East Africa Protectorate and, accordingly, many Nubians taken to Kenya carried British colonial passports and had birth certificates that stated their nationality as British.
In modern day Kenya, however, the Nubian community – claimed to be 100,000 strong by the Kenyan Nubian Council of Elders– finds itself denied many citizenship rights. The ethnic group has been labelled as a ‘detribalised community’ rather than a Kenyan tribe, and Nubians have become part of a growing number of stateless people. As a result, the community has been subjected to the persistent denial of access to employment, the right to vote, and the ability to work in the formal sector, leaving most Nubians trapped in poverty.
Arab others
Kenya’s Nubian population originally served as Askaris (colonial soldiers) in the British Army before being settled in Kenya. In 1912, the British government designated over 4,000 acres of land for the Nubians to settle, which they finally granted to the Askaris and their dependents in 1917. Kibera, the large urban slum on the outskirts of Kenya’s capital Nairobi, grew grown out of the Nubian settlement – originally called Kibra by the Nubians, meaning ‘land of forest’. Today, the majority of Nubians still live in the Kibera slums, with the rest scattered across other major towns.
But while they originally came from Nuba, the community has also earned considerable Kenyan credentials. As well as having lived in Kenya for over a century, Nubians, for instance, helped defend Kenya and East Africa during both World Wars by serving in the King’s African Rifles in countries such as Somalia, Abyssinia (now Ethiopia), Madagascar and Burma.
Nevertheless, the community’s problems today perhaps start with ongoing portrayal as outsiders. Unlike the majority of Kenyans, Nubians are Muslim and speak Ki-Nubi, an Arabic creole, as their first language. “After the Nubians soldiers joined the military”, Issa Abdul Faraj, chairman of the Kenyan Nubian Council of Elders (KENUCE), explained to Think Africa Press, “they had to understand the Arabic language, and in most cases would be instructed using the Arabic writings. This shows the legacy of the Arabic language among the Nubians, and that is why in the streets of Mombasa, most of the signs are written in Arabic.”
This legacy has lived on and maintaining their mother tongue is an important part of retaining the group’s cultural identity. Unfortunately, however, Faraj pointed out, “Speaking the classic Arabic language has [presented] a big challenge for the Nubians community since most Kenyans from other tribes assume that they do not belong here”.
Shattered dreams
The Kenyan government’s designation of the Nubian community as detribalised natives rather than a Kenyan tribe – a classification the colonial British made originally – has repeatedly been used to deny the Nubians’ claims to land, and they are now considered squatters in Kibera. Many other Kenyans have moved in to Kibera, transforming the area into one of Africa’s largest slums. And now the Nubians face eviction by the Kenyan government, which is seeking to ‘upgrade’ the slums and who refuse to recognise the Nubians’ rights to the area.
With tribal association used to establish citizenship in Kenya, many Nubians have also found it very difficult to obtain passports and national identification. Adam Hussein Adam, who trained in chemistry at the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, is one of the few Nubians to have been afforded fuller access to education. He was offered a scholarship in New Zealand in 1992 and in the United States in 2008, but was denied a passport. After producing 13 documents to prove his identity, Adam was eventually invited for questioning by a vetting panel at Kenya’s Ministry of Immigration, where he says he learnt that Nubians are not regarded as Kenyans.
“The Kenyan government shattered my dreams deliberately, I have lost many international jobs in the Middle East and good opportunities to study abroad,” he laments.
Similarly, Adam’s sister apparently had to wait 17 years for her an identity card, something essential for any Kenyan citizen. Adam says that government committees are deliberately discriminatory and ask for a whole range of documents from Nubians to establish their status – such as grandparents’ birth certificates – which other Kenyans were not required to provide. Many Nubians are unable to meet these demands as documents may have been lost over the years or never received in the first place.
Adam says that “many Nubian youths are suffering. Some of them are afraid of being arrested by the immigration department because they do not have their National Identification”.
Plight of the Nubian child
“Our children are suffering and as a result of that, cases of insecurity are on the rise”, Shafi Ali Hussein, the Chairman of the Nubian Rights Forum (NRF), tells Think Africa Press. “We want the Kenyan government to respond to our grievances.”
Hussein emphasised the need to demonstrate and organise to push the government to change its ways. He was part of a group which filed a case against the Kenyan government’s plans to upgrade the Kibera slums and delivered an ultimatum to the government over ID cards and the discriminatory vetting system. “The future of the girl and boy child is still uncertain”, he says, “We will not allow our children to suffer like us. We will seek attention from the highest authority.”
Hussein believes that cases of high school dropouts are high in Kibera because the majority of the Nubians cannot work and cannot afford to put their children through high school and college. He says that young children are engaged in drug peddling because problems with national identification documents mean they cannot find employment. “Our children have been denied a good educational foundation and we also lack direct representation in the government departments”, he explains.
Recently, a delegation from the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child led by the chairman Benyam Sawit Mezmur met with Nubian community leaders to discuss the plight of Nubian children and the Kenyan government’s lack of progress towards answering their grievances.
The problems facing the Nubian community in Kenya are complex and manifold. They will no doubt take time to alleviate and correct. But Hussein sees one simple first step as being self-apparent. “We have held talks with the government officials but nothing much is done”, he says. “Our problems will only end when we will be fully accepted as Kenyans”.
http://thinkafricapress.com/kenya/people-denied-nubians-kibera
How Kenyatta family and other elite acquired choice land
BY JOHN KAMAU
Business Daily November 9, 2009
Failure by both the British government and the World Bank to provide adequate funds to purchase all the land in the Scheduled Areas, also known as White Highlands, kick started a private land-buying spree that tilted the balance in favour of the political elite, senior civil servants and business people, the Business Daily can now reveal.
Land Records and correspondence seen by Business Daily indicate that by December 1966, the Kenyatta family had acquired more than 3895 acres of land in both Nairobi and Ruiru at a total cost of Sh 472,740. The land was registered in either Kenyatta’s name, his wife Mama Ngina’s name, or in the names of Kenyatta’s two eldest sons, Peter Magana and Peter Muigai. Hitherto unseen documents and records show that the Government also allocated Kenyatta some 178 acres in Nairobi. He acquired a further 509 acres to lead the pack in big land acquisition in the country.
Land for free had been ruled out by the British government during the negotiations for independence under a constitutional clause that guaranteed whites their “right to property” and which brought to the fore the “sanctity of title deed”. Senior politicians, led by the Kenyatta family, struck a fortune by “buying” land from fleeing white owners in Scheduled Areas who did not want to stay on in independent Kenya.
The Business Daily can now reveal some details of these land transactions and the amount of money paid. From available records, it appears that many political leaders, businessmen and land buying companies capitalised on the new government’s inability to purchase all the land on offer. Indeed, failure by British government to commit more money to the repurchase of land in the White Highlands is today regarded as the trigger to the free-for-all land-buying spree that left the penniless scrapping for tiny pieces of shamba. It also triggered a spate of land exchanges hitherto unseen in the history of this country. Land changed hands in quick succession as thousands of desperate white farmers with no recourse but to sell their land opted to leave and those Kenyans with power and money acquired thousands of acres of land and formed a new African elite.
Land-buying companies
It is these transactions that have for years shaped the national discourse on whether land, especially in the Rift Valley and other Scheduled Areas, was rightly acquired or was unlawfully appropriated, that is, ‘grabbed’. Details in government books now reveal that this some of the land was acquired from individuals.
The question that is still unanswered is why the government allowed individuals to own huge tracts of land while millions remained landless. For instance, hardly a year after independendence Mama Ngina Kenyatta bought 1006 acres in Dandora from Messrs. Hendrik Rensburg for Sh 200,000 although one government document puts the sum paid at Sh2,000,000, an astronomical figure by the standards of the day. Whichever figure is accurate, this farm lies within the modern day Dandora Estate in Nairobi and beyond.
Peter Muigai Kenyatta bought 700 acres of land around the same area for Sh51,000 and a further 1266 acres North East of Nairobi for Sh 87,000. The only farm registered in Jomo Kenyatta’s name in 1964 was a 5 acre farm he bought from a Mr J.R. Wood and for Sh400. His two sons, Muigai and Magana Kenyatta
also bought 165 acres of land in Ruiru for Sh 9,900 which computes to a price of Sh60 per acre. Kenyatta also paid Sh45,000 to acquire 100 acres in Dandora as a “Trustee for minor son Uhuru.” How the Kenyatta family managed to acquire a fortune only a year after he became President is still unclear but by 1965, it appears they had started to own huge chunks of land that had been bought from their white owners.
Former President Daniel arap Moi had by 1964 bought a 2,344 acres in Kampi-ya-Moto and for Sh 60,000. This appears to be a fairly modest acquisition when compared to the acquisition patterns of 1964 when large chunks of land were on offer. Kenyatta’s right hand man, Mbiyu Koinange, purchased 645 acres in Limuru for Sh497,000 while another cabinet minister Ngala Mwendwa purchased a 932-acre coffee farm in Kahawa worth Sh240,000.
First Vice President Jaramogi Oginga Odinga appears not to have bought land under his own name. Rather he purchased land under the Luo Thrift Trading Company. In 1964 he bought 394 acres from the Estate of B.H. Patel in Miwani and a further 401 acres in 1965 from C. Patel for Sh 255,000. But some of the largest land transactions involved organised land-buying companies which freely bought land on offer in the country. One of those farms is the Kiambaa Farm in Eldoret where arsonists torched a church during the post-election violence.
Records now indicate that the Kiambaa Farmers Co-operative bought the 500-acre farm from Giuseppe Morat in 1967 for Sh 80,000. Another farm that has always been synonymous with tribal clashes is the Kamwaura Farm in Molo which was bought in 1967 for Sh240,000. The 1,636-acre farm which was the
first to experience clashes over land in 1990 and was bought from Lionel Caldwell who was leaving the country. Other big companies that bought land in the area include Kipsitet Farmers Co-operative which purchased a 2,302 acre farm in Kericho for Sh300,000 from Margaritis Ltd.
One of the largest purchases by a co-operative society was in 1965 when Ngati Farmers Co-operative bought a 16,000-acre farm for Sh1.6 million from Maiella Ltd in Naivasha. By 1969, it remained one of the largest farms ever bought by a society and besides Mama Ngina Kenyatta, nobody else had paid such large sums of money for land. Another big landowner in Nairobi who emerged early on is City Council politician Gerishon Kirima. He acquired more than 1,000 acres in different parts of Nairobi to become one of the city’s biggest land barons.
In Western Kenya Burudi Nabwera and Benna Lutta were some of the largest purchasers of land. Nabwera, then a diplomat in Washington, bought 1,221 acres in Trans Nzoia for Sh240,000 from Ellen Jervis while Benna Lutta, later a judge, bought 1,685 acres in Kwanza. Cabinet minister Paul Ngei is on the record as having bought a 1,263-acre farm in Machakos from Kakuzi Fibreland Ltd. His counterpart, Dr Julius Kiano also purchased 176 acres in Kabete which he later sold to University of Nairobi.
Other MPs who purchased huge tracts of land include Willy Kamuren (1,433 acres in Molo), JM Kariuki (880 acres in Ol Kalou), Fred Kubai (684 acres in Njoro), Harry Onamu (349 acres in Turi), and Yego arap Kibomet (1496 in Moiben).
Speculation
As this took place, Britain kept a close eye on the private land transactions with the High Commission in Nairobi occasionally demanding information to this effect. It appears that Kenya and the British government had established the Caren Working Party led by a professional valuer Mr C J Caren which established rules on how to purchase land. The number of private sales peaked in 1966 to reach a total of 180 sales and 137,000 acres change hands but that volume consequently plummeted to 96,000 acres in 1967 as land became increasingly scarce. A letter dated December 13, 1967 to the lands and settlement PS from Senior Valuer, D H Kydd says that it was also “becoming very difficult to find a buyer who is able and willing to pay the true worth of the farm and sales evidence in respect of large scale well developed properties is almost non existent.”
Co-operatives were buying cheap land in barren lands where few agricultural activities took place and which were not suitable for farming. While the lands and settlement ministry through the Settlement Fund Trustee was scouting for farms to buy, it began to face competition from white settlers who were buying land from each other to stabilise the market price as well as for speculative purpose. This practice came to the notice of the lands and settlement minister Jackson Angaine who, after obtaining a copy of the sales report and the names of purchasers, remarked to his PS: “I am rather surprised to see such a large list of the farms changing hands from one to another. May we discuss”. Whatever the nature of the discussion that ensued, land transactions continued to create a new class of propertied families. In the heat of the moment, the purchase of land became political and only those who had the right information prospered. The Kenyan and British governments encouraged purchase by private treaty because there was little paper work and no loans required to develop such properties.
Very little economic activity took place on these acquired farms as they were left idle for decades. What was to be a springboard to prosperous economy became a drag on it instead. While the list above is not exhaustive, it provides a window into how land which was not acquired by the government ended up in the hands of powerful families and politicians or with poor peasants organized in land-buying companies.
KENYA: The Ruby Rip-Off
Monday, Oct. 14, 1974
TIME Magazine
Kenya is a land of fabulously unspoiled game preserves, stable government and excellent trade opportunities. Taking advantage of those opportunities, as foreign businessmen have rue fully discovered, sometimes involves entering a twilight world of official corruption. Corporation executives doing business in Kenya are often asked by high government officials for “contributions” to various charities, though some doubt that the money ends up in the coffers of such worthy recipients as hospitals or orphanages. Early this year, James Skane, the American managing director of Esso Standard in Kenya, was declared a “prohibited immigrant” and summarily expelled from the country after he aggressively tried to collect some $70,000 in unpaid fuel bills. Unfortunately for Skane, it turned out that the money was owed by a series of farms reportedly owned under different names by Kenya’s lionized President Jomo Kenyatta.
The latest story about scandal in Nairobi involves two American geologists, who claim that they have been euchred out of their ownership of what may be the world’s richest ruby mine by some well-connected Kenyans. It all started about a year ago, when John M. Saul, 37, and his partner Elliot (“Tim”) Miller discovered in Kenya’s Tsavo West National Park a deposit of rubies that was later estimated to be worth at least $5 million. Saul and Miller got a fully legal permit to develop their find. Figuring local participation would ease their way, they shrewdly offered 51% of the deal to a group of high-ranking Kenyans, including Vice President Daniel Arap Moi.
Unfortunately for the two Americans, others got wind of the rich discovery. One of them was Beth Mugo, Kenyatta’s niece and unofficial lady in waiting to his vivacious wife, Mama Ngina; another was a wealthy Greek resident of Kenya, George Criticos, a friend of the President’s and Mama Ngi-na’s partner in running the Kenya Trade Development Corp. Saul and Miller charge that Beth Mugo and Criticos encouraged other leading Kenyans, including Mama Ngina, to demand a bigger share of the take. The two Americans agreed to let the Kenyans’ share go up to 72%. Still not satisfied, the Kenyans evidently decided to push the ruby discoverers out of the deal altogether.
Private Pockets. Last June Saul was abruptly declared a “prohibited immigrant” and given 2½ hours to leave the country. At first Miller went into hiding to keep the same thing from happening to him; after a month underground he left the country for London. After Saul’s expulsion, Kenyatta, in an apparent reference to the ruby mine, publicly declared that no foreigner should be allowed to exploit Kenya’s resources for his own private benefit. That is, no doubt, a valid general principle. But in this case it seems that the wealth of the mine is intended for private pockets, not the public welfare. With the Americans out of the way, the mysterious Criticos began mining rubies at Tsavo, continuing even after a Kenyan court had temporarily enjoined him from doing so. There have been allegations that the claims book at the Kenyan Ministry of Natural Resources, in which the two Americans had originally registered their find, has disappeared. In its place, supposedly, is a new claims book listing Criticos’ claim to the Tsavo mine.
U.S. Ambassador Anthony D. Marshall has protested the highhanded treatment of the two Americans. Meanwhile, Saul and Miller are suing in Kenyan courts for recovery of their ruby mine. Few, however, believe that the case will be decided in the Americans’ favor. Kenya is sticking to its claim that Saul was expelled because of gemstone and ivory smuggling.
So far, no stories about the big ruby rip-off have appeared in Kenya’s press, and the government apparently wants to keep it that way. Without directly mentioning the ruby affair, the Foreign Ministry warned at week’s end that it “will not tolerate any section of the press, whether local or overseas, which tends to discredit the image of Kenya abroad.” Kenya is a one-party state, and President Kenyatta has already been declared re-elected to another five-year term for lack of opposition. Still, in the parliamentary elections next week, publicity about high-level hanky-panky over the ruby mine could tarnish the government’s reputation in the eyes of Kenya’s 12 million people.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,908862,00.html
Treasury pays heavy price for land loan defaults
In the third part of a series on land politics at independence, JOHN KAMAU shows how President Jomo Kenyatta’s directive that the government guarantee the sale of land to settlers strained public finances.
Business daily, November 11 2009
Lands and Settlement minister Jackson Angaine and his Finance counterpart James Gichuru were the best of friends in the newly independent Kenya. Angaine fondly referred to Gichuru as “Jimmy” and Gichuru in turn addressed him as “Mzee” even in official government letters. It did not, however, take long before settlement of the landless stretched the friendship to limits.
As political interests derailed the settlement experiment and government finances thinned out in the midst of frequent lecturing by the World Bank and London, the two men at the centre of the plan found their backs against the wall. Today, more than 40 years later, these policy failures and lack of foresight have continued to haunt the land question in Kenya. Land is one of the key items in the so called Agenda Four of the National Accord that President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga signed following the post-election turmoil early last year.
The question is why those in power got things so wrong and what could have been done differently? Gichuru, came under increasing pressure from the British government’ which insisted that a loan — given to the Kenya government to purchase land from white settlers — be paid on time. Not many of the settlers had the capacity to pay the loans. It was inability to handle this pressure that saw Gichuru replaced at the Treasury by Mwai Kibaki who oversaw the repayments. Those who understand the politics of the time say Gichuru had earned his place at the Treasury because he was one of the conservative politicians who supported Kenyatta’s position that nobody should acquire land for free during the 1962 Lancaster House talks which gave Kenya its independence constitution.
It was a docket he could hardly handle and poverty pushed thousands of landless people into urban areas. By May 1966, after failing to convince London to give the poor a moratorium on repayment of the resettlement loans, Gichuru wrote a brief letter to Angaine saying the British were unlikely to alter their stand on the matter. Despite a remarkable improvement in the collection of funds from settlers, the money was not enough to offset the overall loan service charge.
Efforts to improve the situation did not succeed and it was decided that the matter be referred to ruling party Kanu’s parliamentary group. It was at the meeting attended by 114 MPs and 13 Cabinet ministers that President Kenyatta agreed to grant a moratorium to African settlers. But the Kanu parliamentary group Secretary T. Malinda’s revelation of the moratorium decision on May 23, 1966 at parliament buildings appeared to have only opened a can of worms instead of resolving the matter. It was not clear who it covered or how long it would last. John Michuki, then Permanent Secretary at Treasury found himself in an awkward position when he suggested that Kenyatta’s decision be followed by a clarification because it was open to abuse.
Writing to both Geoffrey Kariithi, the Office of the President PS and Peter Shiyukah, the Lands PS, Mr Michuki complained that “the way the announcement was made, even future buyers of the Z Plots (100 acres with permanent improvements) would benefit from the moratorium.”
Wealthy settlers
Mr Michuki insisted that he did not consider that category of people as in “dire need of a moratorium since most of them were, in any case, wealthy people.” Mr Michuki had one other worry. “The effect of a moratorium on revenue is such that the Government would be repaying land settlement loans without receiving payments from the beneficiaries. There might be justification in giving the concession to poor settlers, but I do not think it would be justifiable for the wealthy.” Mr Michuki was supported on this issue by Mr Shiyukah in a letter dated June 5, 1967. The PS complained that ever since the statement was made, MPs had been asking “those who had been evicted on account of not paying up their instalments” to go back to their farms. Mr Shiyukah also informed Mr Michuki that some of the Z Plot owners stormed the ministry’s offices to demand their post-paid cheques.
The confusion was deepened by an East African Standard report that the moratorium only covered those with more than 100 acres of land! Mr Shiyukah knew that the British government and World Bank would not approve Kenyatta’s directive and called for a meeting with other permanent secretaries. The meeting agreed that a confidential circular dated June 6, 1967 — would be issued indicating that Kenyatta’s order only covered “future new settlers” meaning that those who had already taken loans would not benefit. But even before it was issued Local Government minister Lawrence Sagini, stormed the Lands office and withdrew some post-dated cheques he had deposited for land he had acquired.
Treasury and Settlements ministries found themselves in a new crisis. It was suggested that they approach Mr Malinda to correct the moratorium reports. Mr Kariithi intervened to save the day with a clarification that the directive covered “all new settlers allocated new plots” from the time the announcement was made. At Treasury however, the problem was much bigger. Mr M. A. Collins, the financial adviser for settlements, expressed concern that financial position of the programme would be adversely affected by the moratorium “since money had to be found to settle debts to lenders.” That money, he said, would have been available from the settlers had the moratorium not been granted. The financial implications of the Kenyatta directive were huge.
Loans from the British Exchequer attracted a 7 per cent annual interest and the onus was on Treasury to meet the repayment obligations. Back at the Office of the President, Mr Kariithi did not want those who owned more than 100 acres excluded from the moratorium. Writing to Mr Michuki on July 18, 1967, the PS said he was “unable to agree with your suggestion that holders of farms larger than 100 acres should not benefit from the moratorium because they are rich.”
Near chaotic
“Should a settler wish to repay his loan earlier because he is rich, then he should be allowed to do so,” he said. As civil servants in Nairobi tried to study the implications of the directive, Rift Valley Provincial Commissioner Isaiah Mathenge described the situation in the field as “near chaotic as we do not know where we stand.” A meeting held on August 4, 1967 at the office of the PS (Settlements) John arap Koitie, heard that loan repayments had come to a near halt after Kariithi ordered that no clarification of Kenyatta’s order should be made. The meeting agreed that Mr Kariithi issues a clarification to save the situation and Mr J.G. Kibe, the under-secretary of Treasury, informed the meeting that the Government was not in a position to subsidise the settlers and that an increase in taxation to meet such expenditure was unjustifiable. Mr Kariithi was coaxed into making a clarification through a press statement from the Lands and Settlement PS that he issued on August 18. And this was part of the confusion that trailed the settlements.
Kenyatta’s reaction
John Kamau
Business Daily
November 10, 2009
Jomo Kenyatta was infuriated by the dictations that Britain was giving concerning the Z Plots. When the Cabinet finally deliberated on the issue on April 25, 1967, official minutes say that Kenyatta “strongly objected to the fact that the British Government, through its High Commission had interfered” in the sale of 100-acre farms. Kenyatta ordered that the sale of 100- acre farms should be resumed and that the Treasury “should guarantee the funds involved” He also directed that the agreement with the British government on the settlement fund repayments should be reviewed.
This became a tricky affair for the ministry officials since it was both political and financial. It was not clear who was to assume responsibility for the other costs of settlements that were triggered by the excision of 100-acre plots. Kenyatta’s order meant that the Kenya taxpayer was to shoulder the burden of assisting the 100-acre farm owners by having a special fund to cater for the upkeep of their farms. The financial implications of the British refusal to fund the elite from the settlement budget was prepared by M.A. Collings, Kenya Ministry of Lands Financial adviser. He handed a copy to J.G. Kibe, then an under-secretary at the treasury.
The onus of informing the British Government on Kenya’s stand fell on John Michuki. He admitted that the issue of 100-acre plots “raises considerable financial difficulties” His letter was a lengthy 5-pages whose bottom line was that Kenya government was to shoulder the 100-acre package. Britain had proposed that if the Kenya government agreed to take over financial responsibility of 100-acre plots, Kenya would be allowed to convert certain some loans into grants. Some of those who benefited from Kenyatta’s order included Mwai Kibaki and GG Kariuki who got a house in Nyahururu Scheme No 206. What worried John Michuki at the Treasury was that these houses were not sold by tender and the deal was contrary to recommendations of the Van Arakdie Mission which said that future plots must be sold by auction or by tender and should not be less than the original valuation. Michuki wrote to Shiyukah and asked why he “seemed to have completely ignored” the Arkadie Mission report.
Unknown to Michuki, somebody scribbled in his letter after it reached Shiyukah’s office: “This recommendations negative and unacceptable” One letter from the Kisii District Commissioner, N.G. Mwangi, today indicates that there was little support on the ground on the allocation of Z Plots. He wrote a Confidential letter to the PC Nyanza saying the government is being criticized by the people for only considering the rich. Permanent Secretary in the Office of the President Geofrey Kariithi got a hold of the letter and told Angaine: “It looks to me as if something is wrong..” Kariithi was getting worried that the Z Plot owners had also not been paying for their plots.
On June 11, 1969 he wrote a letter to John Koitie, the PS lands and settlement. “It is very sad that it is the public servants in receipt of regular salaries who have been the worst offenders in the loan repayment for these plots … as the Controller and auditor general has commented, the civil servants will get unfavourable criticism. I cannot see any reason why anybody having committed himself to buying a property cannot organize himself to make regular payments. I intend to raise the subject of ministers who are defaulters with his excellency the President.” By 1971 the list of defaulters included Lands Minister Jackson Angaine, Cabinet minister Dr Gikonyo Kiano, University of Nairobi Vice Chancellor Dr. Josephat Karanja and many others.
Settlement schemes: What went wrong?
Business Daily November 9, 2009
Selfishness among whites and drunkenness by Africans blamed for collapse of a plan to transfer swathes of land in Rift Valley to Kenyans, reports JOHN KAMAU
When chaos broke out in the Rift Valley shortly after the controversial 2007 Presidential vote tally, the land question quickly emerged as the bone of contention. But why, more than 45 years after independence? Business Daily has been poring over government files, letters and memos which trace the confusion to the colonial government’s plan to create a set of elite African farmers to replace the white settlers in the Rift Valley, originally known as Yeomen Settlement Scheme project.
When it failed, the idea of peasant settlements was mooted but it too came a cropper at both the social and political level. Thanks in large part to the planning chaos associated with the failed settlement project, the land question has lingered over political discourse in Kenya like a bad dream. The British government — under pressure from white farmers who feared being abandoned in Kenya after independence— convinced the freedom agitators, led by conservative teacher-turned-politician James Gichuru, to allow for a smooth transfer of farms lest the economy, which was anchored on colonial agriculture, suffer damage.
Selfishness and drunkenness
The independence negotiators agreed to a scheme mooted in Lancaster House in which Britain would guarantee a World Bank loan to the new Government, which would buy all the land owned by white settlers and settle its citizens on it. The Kenyan tax-payers were to pay for that loan— in essence pay for all the colonial agricultural development that had taken place in the white highlands. But there was already a complication — some of the white farmers had started mortgaging their farms with banks, leaving the politicians in a fix. Mr Gichuru and his team knew that Kenya was an agricultural economy and if the land question was not solved quickly, they would inherit a bankrupt nation. At the time Jomo Kenyatta, the man who would inherit the mantle from Mr Gichuru, was still in restriction.
Mr Gichuru found himself carrying the burden of informing his frenzied followers that there would be no free land, an issue that divided the Kanu party down the middle. Meanwhile, in 1960 the World Bank had opened discussions with Kenya’s interim chairman of the settlement board, Mr J F Lipscombe, on how to start settling the first group of Yeomen farmers – as they were then known – into the white highlands to become the first set of African farmers who would save the economy from ruin. The Yeomen scheme as it turned out was a clever plot to give the best land to a few people. Aware that radicals in independent Kenya might scuttle their efforts, the World Bank and the colonial government on November 29, 1961 entered into a pact which gave them the mandate to approve a list of all officials who would join the lands and settlement ministry, especially those who would take up positions that would directly impact on the loan.
The Yeomen programme envisaged buying some 240,000 acres of high potential land which was to be broken into pieces of 100 acres each. But while money was borrowed from the World Bank as loan no. 303KE, the Yeomen scheme flopped after it became difficult to get enough African farmers to manage the farm. The idea had first been mooted by Governor Malcolm MacDonald who wanted to open the White Highlands to a select group of African farmers to farm alongside the white settlers. Documents seen by Business Daily show that Mr Lipscombe told the officials that the only way to get such a huge number of farmers was to hunt for them in the non-scheduled African land units. The first experiment was carried out on Luckhurst Farm, which was nicknamed Bahati and was divided into eight different farms — the largest portion being 186 acres and the smallest 49.7 acres. The original idea was that the farmers would sell their maize to the Kenya Farmers Association (KFA) but only one farmer did so at the end of the harvest. An investigative report by J H Lategan which was sent to the Lands and Settlement permanent secretary, Mr N S Carey Jones, sheds light into what went wrong in the initial stages of the Yeomen experiment which was to be rolled out countrywide.
It blames selfishness on the part of the white farmers and drunkenness and elitist behaviour on the part of the new African growers for the scheme’s failure. Mr Lategan wrote: “The European farmers, for purely selfish reasons, were anxious for this scheme to succeed when it was initiated, their idea being that if this scheme succeeds they would be in a favourable position to get rid of their own farms at good prices to the settlement board.” However, he continued: “Yeomen farmers consider themselves to be gentlemen who are above the menial tasks of farming and they spend most of their time in the bars of Nakuru, the work being left to the women and labourers.” The Yeomen Scheme was highly subsidised by the colonial government as a direct reward to those who had supported the colonial structure. While all the labourers had been supplied and paid for by the government, Mr Lategan found only one farmer at the Bahati farm. Besides the farmers’ drunkenness, they did not have extension officers to assist them and relied on neighbouring European growers for advice.
“Some of them still appear to try peasant farming, which means that they plant crops, such as beans in between the rows of maize,” said the report. The failure of the Yeomen scheme compelled the government revise its policy. The British government and the World Bank then agreed that land transfer would be done through normal sales in the open market in which large farms would be transferred to new owners or cooperative societies. It was this last effort that became the accepted norm shortly after independence and which the government of Jomo Kenyatta flagged on enthusiastically. The Yeomen Scheme only lasted until 1961, when it was re-named the Assisted Farmers scheme. While the Government, with funding from World Bank and British government started buying land for the Assisted Farmers, what slowly emerged was a new crop of big land owners amid a general state of landlessness and poverty. Meanwhile, the loans doled out meant that Kenya was becoming highly indebted. Available data shows that by December 1962, the land settlement debt in relation to the entire Kenya’s debt stood at 1.4 per cent and by December 1963 it shot to 5.45 per cent before rising to 11.7 per cent in 1966.
whos laughing now aha aha ahaooooooooow!
Don, Uhuru still remains out of the Forbes list. This is not about his presidency, so stop being ridiculous.
After all, Assange is facing extradition to
Sweden for questioning in a rape case. Undeterred by his constant jailing,
Xiaobo took his political ideas to the Internet, which he called “God’s gift to China”.
The dramatic difference between Obama’s
statements and his subsequent deeds has prompted Abbas to announce,
in frustration, that he will not seek another term in office.