Navy story.indd - Mars Group Kenya Publications

The Navy Ship Deal
4. Lt. Col P. Kituku, the Kenyan naval officer who was said to be supervising
the ship’s construction told the committee that “he had been appointed to oversee
the ship’s construction in 2002 by the Defence Council and arrived at the Astilleros
Gondan’s shipyard in Spain in January 2002.” While moving the motion of adoption
of the report, the chairman G.G. Kariuki, confirms these dates when he said“The navy
officer arrived in Spain in January 2002.”This is very strange because the contract for
the ship was only signed on July 15th 2003, and if we are to believe Dr. Murungaru,
the former Minister of State, presidential authorization was only given in June 2003.
What was he doing in Spain even before the tender that was said to have been
floated on September 11th 2002 Is it not noteworthy to the committee that the
KACC took statements from the then Chief of General Staff, General Kibwana and
the top naval brass as far back as June 2005
5. The same officer also told the committee that “through Euromarine,
Astilleros Gondan had been contracted by GOK to build other marine vessels in the
past. For instance he mentioned the two logistic ships delivered in 1993; five inshore
patrol boats delivered in 1994; and two offshore patrol boats delivered in 1996, all of
which are still in service to date.” Is this really true As noted above, Astilleros Gondan
does not claim to have built any vessels for Kenya and in fact was only registered as
a defence exporter by the Spanish government in September 2005 (more than two
years after the contentious contract was signed).
6. Though the committee “was informed by Euromarine and the Kenyan
supervising naval officer Lt. Col P. Kituku, that the ship is practically over 90 per cent
complete” and that funds permitting it can be completed in another two months,
the ship has no weaponry at all and that Euromarine was not responsible for arming
the vessel at all. The G.G. Kariuki committee was told by a Mr. Salvador Surroca
Vineta, that “the GOK would have to sign a new contract with arms manufacturers
to fit its desired weaponry system.”Nevertheless the committee claims that the ship
is already equipped with a satellite communications system while dryly noting that
“only parts of the oceanographic vessel’s survey equipment have been installed
to date.” Recall that the primary function of this ship is to conduct oceanographic
surveys. The clincher to us was the offer by Euromarine that “if GOK expressed
interest in the ship, Euromarine would negotiate the terms with suppliers for a
new arrangement” because as they helpfully pointed out the warranties for various
pieces of equipment already installed on Jasiri Mombasa “have since expired.” Mr.
Sorroca then “confided that his firm had received queries on the ship from at least
three governments including Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines.” The committee
followed this by expressing “satisfaction with the physical
structure and state of the ship.” How can the committee have
been satisfied with such a scenario, in which Kenya is being
asked to pay Ksh 4.6 billion for a ship for our navy which for
all intents and purposes is merely a steel hulk with out-ofwarranty-equipment
and no guns
7. Much was made by Euromarine of its desire to
forego already commenced arbitration proceedings at the
“Permanent International Court of Arbitration in the Hague”,
and to resolve the matter amicably. Incredibly, the committee
did not broach the issue of the allegations of unlawful and
corrupt procurement which have been raised by former
Permanent Secretary for Governance and Ethics, John
OSIEA
www.marsgroupkenya.org
5