Cockar report: Grand Regency transaction was not transparent

KACC had verbally and in writing advised the Governor that the Registration of Settlement of 9th April 2008 had transferred the ownership of the Hotel to CBK, but the Governor insisted that the Hotel still belonged to UHDL and, therefore, was determined to sell the Hotel through UHDL or through the exercise of CBK’s statutory power of sale.

If he held the view that the Hotel was not the property of CBK, but rather was private property belonging to UHDL, then how could he entertain the belief that the Government of Kenya had the capacity to sell this private property?

The Government of Kenya clearly had no basis to get involved in this transaction in any manner if the Hotel was private property.

On his own admission the Governor said that no Government Ministry had been invited or involved during the meetings with the Libyan delegations.

The Minister of Lands, Hon. James Orengo, said he had no knowledge of what was taking place. According to Hon. Orengo the proposed sale of the Hotel had never been considered or discussed by the cabinet, as would be the case in such circumstances.

He said that if the sale was a Government-to-Government transaction the Attorney General or his office would have been involved.

In our view there was no convincing evidence or incident which could have given reasonable ground to consider this a Government-to-Government transaction. Spirited submissions by some of the advocates that the actions of CBK constituted actions of the Government of Kenya did not change the position.

On the other hand the entire evidence of the Governor was brimming with the assertion of this being a Government-to-Government transaction. That would seem to suggest other motives, and to cover these he decided to use the non- existent and unbelievable excuse that the sale was a Government-to-Government transaction.

This excuse enabled him to execute the sale and, with such alacrity and secrecy, get the transfer registered within less than three working days.

Was transaction transparent?

The term Transparent is here used to connote decision-making and actions that are open and accountable as opposed to those that are mired in secrecy and opaqueness.

We have already dealt with the manner in which the documents relating to the transfer and registration were presented at the Lands Department.

The emphasis on speed and confidentiality was unusual and unprecedented to such an extent that the need was felt for a person no less than the Director, Governor’s office, Mr Abuga to personally accompany Mr Adan, advocate for the purchasers, Laico, to the Lands Office when the documents were presented for registration.

As already noted Mr Abuga, apart from his other managerial duties, was the Board Secretary and in charge of Legal Services with several advocates working under him. The reason for the apparently unusual behavior on the part of Mr Abuga is given by him, that he was following the directions given by the Governor himself.

His presence at the Lands Office during the valuation, payment of the stamp duty and finally registration of the transfer was clearly to ensure that secrecy, confidentiality and speed were strictly ensured.