Navy story.indd - Mars Group Kenya Publications

The Navy Ship Deal
Githongo and the serious procedural queries raised by the Controller and
Auditor General in his special audit report of April 2006. Why
8. The committee did not seem to use any prior inquiries into this contract
in conducting its inquiry. It makes no mention of the KACC investigation of
Euromarine and its co-financiers. It makes no mention of the reports by the
Public Accounts Committee, the Controller and Auditor General or the Githongo
report. did not speak to the Controller and Auditor General or John Githongo.
It is written without context and worryingly relies as its primary source of
information, on the officials of the contractor whom they were meant to be
inquiring into. Why was the committee so determined to ignore the concerns
raised by prior official reports, and to urge the Government to renegotiate or
submit to international arbitration
9. Further no attempt was made by the committee, or none is mentioned,
to make contact with the alleged financiers of this Ksh 4.6 billion ship (Navigia
Capital and Impressas de Financas). There is no mention of any inquiries made
of Credit Lyonais Bank which is listed as the creditor to the Government of
Kenya in the External Public Debt Register. Why was the committee ignoring
the financing and debt aspect of the ship they visited
10. Finally, the committee is under the misapprehension, possibly
because of a confusion arising from whom it talked to, coupled with its not
calling for the contract itself, that the naval ship contract “was signed before the
current Government came to power.” This is what GG Kariuki told Parliament
on April 26th 2007 as he asked the House to adopt his report. It is untrue. The
contract was signed on July 15th 2003. Why is Mr. Kariuki under such a false
impression Why does he say to Parliament that the construction started in
March 2003, more than 3 months before the contract was signed What exactly
is going on
11. As he moved the motion for adoption of the report, GG Kariuki also
told Parliament that “the committee was assured that this ship was inspected
according to the international standards by Kenya and Lloyd’s specifications
and other international marine standards.” Why then does the report reflect a
different position on page 10 The committee was clearly told that “acceptance
trials with inspectors from Lloyd’s Registers and Kenya Navy personnel would
be conducted once outstanding issues are settled.”
12. The report attracted media attention, prior to its adoption by
Parliament, when it was produced in court on March 20th 2007 by lawyers Fred
Ngatia and Kioko Kilukumi before Justice Emukule. The duo argued, for their
respective clients, Euromarine Industries, Pritpal Thethy and Andrew Burnard,
that the Kenya Anti Corruption Commission had no basis for continuing to
investigate them over the Ksh 4.6 billion navy ship contract as the same had
been cleared by Parliament. How did the report come into the possession of
these lawyers
6
www.marsgroupkenya.org OSIEA