I thought you guys fought with honor but as it turns out you are also peddling lies.
It is obvious that this is the position you would take since all your posts are one-sided and leaning toward partisan positions.
It is obvious that your preferred candidates would benefit by Uhuru's name being tainted.
Iy you want to know what I think about the budget error read this:
http://t.co/pZzvoie
Then even by singling out KenRen you have committed the error of omission. Your statements are only meant to mislead readers as to what actually happened in the KenRen saga and don't think that I will leave this matter unsettled.
Here is the real story:
In 1975, the Kenya Government entered into a joint venture with an American firm known as N-Ren to establish KenRen Chemical and Fertilizers Limited which was to manufacture fertiliser for domestic and export markets.
The fertiliser factory was meant to be built in Changamwe in Mombasa. But up to now, it does not exist. KenRen itself went under and because the government had guaranteed loans it was legally obliged to uphold its commitment to certain banks.
KenRen entered into several financing and equipment procurement contracts with Austrian and Belgian banks and suppliers with Government of Kenya as the guarantor.
The banks involved were Banque Bruxelles Lambert (BBL) and Office of National Du Ducroire of Belgium and Bank Fur Arbeit Und Wirtschaft (BAWAG) of Austria.
The suppliers were Coppee Lavalin of Belgium and Voest Alpine of Austria. No equipment was delivered to KenRen except for some crates whose contents were not verified. The project collapsed and KenRen went into liquidation in 1978.
Though no goods or services were supplied, the foreign banks involved claimed to have paid the suppliers in full and were therefore owed money by KenRen as per the signed financing agreements. As KenRen never actually commenced business, the government as the guarantor became liable for the debt.
The banks and suppliers sued the Kenya Government in the International Chamber of Commerce Court of Arbitration. A total of five cases were filed in London, Paris and Cyprus.
In 1988, the Belgium financiers, Banque Bruxelles Lambert (BBL), and Office National Du Ducroire (OND) instituted proceedings at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) against the Government of Kenya for failing to honour its obligations as the guarantor of the loans. The Plaintiffs were claiming USD.42 million (Kshs.2.9 billion) from the government.
Five other court cases were instituted against the government.
In Cyprus, Voest was awarded ATS.300 million. In an attempt to work out an amicable solution to the court cases, a Government of Kenya delegation held discussions in Vienna on 23rd to 25thAugust, 2000 at which some proposals were agreed on. Subsequently, Lazard Frere was retained by the Government to assist in the negotiations. GoK commissioned Freshfields, a UK firm of lawyers to defend it in court cases.
In the year 2000, the Government of Kenya faced economic difficulties and approached the Paris Club creditors for debt rescheduling. The Austrian Government, a member of the Paris Club intervened and insisted that an amicable solution be reached and signed before the Paris Club could consider Kenya’s request for debt rescheduling.
An agreement for Euro.16,635,156.16 rescheduling was signed between Kenya and Austria whose terms among others were that the loan be repaid over 11 years commencing in the year 2003 at an annual interest rate of 1.5%.
On 6th November 2002, the ICC Court of Arbitration gave an award in favour of BBL and OND for EURO 21,181,992.00 (close to Kshs.72 billion) against the Government of Kenya. In addition, the Government was to pay BBL USD.87,500.00 (close to Kshs.6, 825,000.00) being reimbursement of arbitration costs.
A Kenyan government delegation travelled to Belgium on 23rd October 2003 to negotiate for restructuring the terms of the debt. The outstanding amount inclusive of accrued interest was Euro.34,837,548.00 plus the USD. 87,500.00 legal fees.
The terms of the negotiation were as follows:-
• 20% reduction amounting to EURO.2,732,512.00 thus effectively reducing the amount to EURO 32,207,210;
• An up-front payment of EURO.1,500,000.00 plus US.$87,500 before 31st December 2003;
• Balance of EURO 30,707,210.00 to be rescheduled over a repayment term of 13 years including 3 years grace period;
• Applicable interest rate was Euribor 6 months plus 0.5% margin to be fixed after every six months.
Regarding the Austrian part of the debt, the Government of Austria intervened to ensure that the debt was recognized as part of the 2000 rescheduling under the IMF/World Bank administered PRGF program, which the Government of Kenya was implementing. With regard to the Belgium portion of the loan, the award was through an Arbitration Tribunal and subsequent negotiation to restructure the debt by the Government reduced the initial award.
The government was of the view that it had been defrauded in this matter and that’s why it had initially refused to pay. However, since valid agreements had been entered into and Arbitration Tribunals had ruled in favour of plaintiffs, the government had no choice but to pay.
Why is it then that both Mwalimu Mati and now you 'user' feel that this is a personal matter facing the Finance Minister Uhuru Kenyatta when this is a government matter?