Why Qatar-Tana River land deal requires further discussion

Presidential authoritarianism has been with us since independence, and it has been a significant part of the cause of our economic, social and political problems. State House has been the be-all and end-all, one-stop shop for foreign interests — businesspeople from all over the world as well as local ones.

At State House military and economic contracts can be approved, sales of national property done, land alienated and national animals donated. These can be undertaken without the authority of Parliament or Kenyans themselves.

The so-called sensitive and security contracts are sanctioned only by State House and anybody who dares divulge the terms of such contracts can be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act.

It does not, therefore, surprise any Kenyan that a key demand in constitution-making is the democratisation and decentralisation of the imperial presidency — the political home of presidential authoritarianism.

The current dispute over the alienation of more than 100,000 acres of prime land in the River Tana delta is just one example of the presidential opaqueness that continues to cost Kenya dearly.

The issue here is not legal, but economic, political and moral. Should the President alienate government land and give it to foreigners without consulting not just the people of Tana River, but all Kenyans?

Should he be allowed to enter into such a critical contract on behalf of the country without Kenyans being fully informed? We are talking about the construction of a port, a railway line, a pipeline and a highway through regions that have been marginalised since the colonial era. Does such a project not require a national debate?

Does it not need the country to mobilise its best brains and expertise to make sure national interests are guaranteed by consenting to the best deals possible? Should we not assure the people of Coast Province and northern Kenya that this ambitious project will reduce their marginalisation through public discussions?

Is the President ignoring the plight of Kenyans who have been crying for food security and sovereignty when he seems to be concerned only about the food security of the people of Qatar?

One of the most sickening arguments in this debate is that it is all right to give the Arabs land since, in any case, we have given land to, for example, the British, Europeans, Americans and the Chinese. We are being asked to accept the continued pillage of our resources by foreign interests in the name of development.

Kenyans must resist the foreign domination of any shape or form. They must continue to resist their enslavement by the West, East and Middle East. This new Arab slave trade in Africa and Asia has to be resisted in the same manner as the European and American slave trade that continues in Africa — and Kenya.

Does it make sense at all that we should give the fertile delta to Qatar to grow vegetables and fruit when we have farmers who can do the same and export them to Qatar? In a region in which there is stark landlessness, why are the residents not being considered for such land allocations?

Why do we think it is safe to give land to Arabs from Qatar when land disputes between Arabs and indigenous Africans at the Coast are yet to be resolved? Why does the President alienate land when he knows that the land issue will be central in the constitution-making process this year?

Why does he alienate land when the national land policy is still under discussion? Why is he not bothered by Kenya’s own national food security and sovereignty? Is the Qatar deal the best for the country?

Americans have military facilities in Lamu and, given their war on terror, they probably will be interested in expanding the Lamu port. Does the US military aid to Kenya exclude the reconstruction of ports? Are not the Americans and the Chinese interested in the oil in Southern Sudan as well?