[kictanet] [ke-internetusers] Re: PS Ndemo, ECONET Scandal aand Vested Interests

[mwananchi at hushmail.com]

Dear Eric,

Some weekend reading for you, this article was directed at NEPAD 
and the then Finance Minister and it covers some of the issues we 
have been discussing.

Africa, Kimunya should seek monetary policies that serve local 
interests 
http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82
62&Itemid=5821

"This, however, remains the quintessential question of African 
development: how to achieve economic independence in an 
international and regional context where the profit motives of most 
investors and lenders rarely correspond to our growth and 
development goals."

We simply cannot achieve economic independence when over 80 percent 
of the economy is in the hands of foreigners more so non Africans 
and PS Ndemo now wants to eliminate indigenous ownership 
requirements. Local ownership requirements did not deter the 
credible and serious Zain's, Vodafone's, France Telecom's, Altech's 
of this world from coming into Kenya. Has PS Ndemo forgotten that 
Kenya's FDI in the last year rose by over 1300 percent?

Is it fair that some local individuals could use multiple separate 
companies in which they have substantial shareholding so as to 
maximize their effective share of TEAMS while other legitimate 
local and international investors are locked out? These and other 
criteria (total beneficial ownership etc) need to be looked at and 
analysed to get to the core of the matter.

It is a pity that PS Ndemo seems to believe that it is a bad thing 
when Peterson asks the Government to listen to local investors and 
take their interests into consideration while striking a balance in 
the same way he listens to foreign investors and makes arbitrary 
non-consultative policy changes just because the Nesbitt's of this 
world (who already have a tax holiday) have already arm twisted him 
behind closed doors into submission. We want these unnamed vested 
interests to take their case to the Kenyan public and to stop 
coercing public servants behind closed doors, if they can convince 
the public openly that what they need is good for Kenya then the 
public through their representatives will effect such changes 
openly and transparently.

As for the other matters, they don't require endorsement or 
agreement, the facts stand on their own, they are facts anyone can 
verify by going to the High Court registrar, providing the case 
number and obtaining the same documents and rulings. The near 
collapse and disrespect of our institutions is as a result of the 
permeation and embrace of a culture of impunity. If these 
institutions were respected by among others, PS Ndemo, it would not 
be an issue affecting the nation. 

I challenge anyone with any contradicting documents to dispute the 
facts by presenting the same rather than attempting to assassinate 
the messenger for blowing the whistle.

Have a good weekend.

Regards,

Peterson

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:38:36 +0000 "Eric M.K Osiakwan" 
<emko at internetresearch.com.gh> wrote:
>Dear Peterson,
>
>I go with you on the wheel that the vested interest of the country 
>in  
>paramount.....
>
>The elements of my case though disappointing, i went with the  
>established criteria since was applied across board but then in 
>the  
>situation where most of the local companies are majority owned by 
>non- 
>Africans, then one needs to look into the criteria again.
>
>The larger question, we need to raise is how do we ensure that the 
> 
>interest of other African investors can be unheld in another 
>African  
>jurisdiction, in the context of developing Africa by Africans. You 
> 
>know the TEAMS process is still ongoing so lets allow the 
>establish  
>procedures and policies to work, am patient and dont have any hard 
> 
>feelings at all.
>
>The other big question that we need to answer is, these huge  
>infrastructure projects require huge sums of money, personally am 
>not  
>a deep pocket in that sense but at least i can raise the money, 
>may  
>be from another African country or worse case outside the 
>continent  
>if the amounts are way over. The TEAMS model where public funds 
>are  
>used to underwrite the risk in order to ensure that the entry  
>barriers for investment are  minimised so local investors and  
>entrepreneurs can participate are innovative and i personally want 
>to  
>give the TEAMS model a chance to succeed. We as Africans need to  
>evolve solutions to our unique problems, ofcourse borrowing in 
>same  
>cases from others who have gone ahead.
>
>Unfortunately, i would have to distant myself from some of the  
>allegations though you establish them on factual basis, it would 
>be  
>good for the right authorities to follow it through so that we 
>have  
>conclusive situations. Also, those involved must be given a chance 
>to  
>present their side of the argument so that those in this forum can 
>be  
>more knowledgable. Again, if we can keep it tactful, then the 
>common  
>good is preserved for the sake of posterity.
>
>Have a good weekend, good people.
>
>
>
>On 10 Oct 2008, at 20:16, mwananchi at hushmail.com wrote:
>
>> Dear Eric,
>>
>> At the end of the day, Kenyans only want the best for our 
>nation.
>> Kenyans certainly are not against beneficial foreign direct
>> investment and welcome it provided it is conducted under 
>policies
>> that result in a win-win situation for Kenyans and the investor.
>> Unfortunately the country's policies particularly those being
>> fronted now do not reflect that wish, which is why it is 
>important
>> that the Government pay attention to what local and would be
>> international investors are saying and strike a balance that is 
>a
>> win-win for both.
>>
>> In your case, had PS Ndemo stuck with his proposal that he made 
>in
>> 2007, Internet Research would not be experiencing any hurdles. 
>The
>> local component would also have been preserved in a manner not
>> detrimental to your company.
>>
>> I hope that PS Ndemo will address the issue of your company. 
>Kenya
>> as an African country should not be deterring Kenyan or any 
>other
>> African investors who are credible and who operate and respect 
>our
>> laws and institutions instead of trampling them underfoot and in
>> the one case that has been mentioned, deliberately failing to 
>meet
>> their obligations for over 4 years. These are the same types of
>> investors who have been rejected by Altech, the nations of Papua
>> New Guinea, Malawi, Nigeria. The same characters who failed to 
>meet
>> their licence obligations for years in New Zealand and were 
>lucky
>> to get token percentage ownership of what was left when credible
>> investors took over and who in Lesotho have been engaged in tax 
>and
>> roaming link frauds.
>>
>> http://rapidshare.com/files/152715858/fraud_in_lesotho.pdf
>>
>> They finally found a safe haven to land in Kenya embraced by a
>> culture of impunity where it does not matter if you meet your
>> obligations or if you operate with cancelled licences provided
>> powerful vested interests pave and coerce the way for you.
>>
>> When we reject investors whom we know such as Eric and embrace
>> undesirable investors instead, it shows why we precisely are
>> lagging behind in FDI. Indeed if Kenya gave investors 5 years as 
>it
>> did in this particular case to pay licencing fees, the country
>> would be overwhelmed with numerous investors. As the occassion 
>of
>> Moi Day graces us today, the Moi government despite its many 
>flaws
>> was quick to realize what type of animal this was and correctly
>> rejected them not just once but twice.
>>
>> Peterson
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:31:48 +0000 "Eric M.K Osiakwan"
>> <emko at internetresearch.com.gh> wrote:
>>> Dear Peterson,
>>>
>>> Thanks for establishing a set of facts and am sure the right
>>> people
>>> would respond to the issues you have riased. I hope the 
>discussion
>>>
>>> would continue on a factual basis and not degenerate.
>>>
>>> I want to also present one set of facts regarding my 
>participation
>>> in
>>> the TEAMS project. My company, Internet Research went through 
>the
>>>
>>> entire process and indeed qualified to be allocated shares but 
>at
>>> one
>>> of the proposed shareholders meeting, the issue of local 
>ownership
>>>
>>> came up.
>>>

--
Learn from the comfort of your home.  Choose your degree and receive a free info pak.
http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/Ioyw6h4eS5zglpKiYQ1E4QV7ya3V7OQilSPtQZA6nTe5QdbJulIxcO/