Nanok was by all respects right to question why parliament reduced his people’s share of oil revenue from 10% to 5%.
The president has control over his party mps and ascents to the bill. So he should not say he “only signs”.
To be fair, Turkana people have perenially had to engage hunger one on one. Largely because of their natural habitat. When this habitat gives to them a resource they can use to meet their needs, don’t be this evil politician who want to squeeze as much as you can from them.
10% to the community is a good deal.
Nanok reminds me of Ken Saro Wiwa who voiced Ogoni people’s issues. You have resources but foreigners come and benefit more.
Kwani wakati parliament had agreed 10% earlier ,they didn’t factor in the drilling costs ? If they didn’t and came to realize later then wamejaa shonde kwa hiyo fat bodies yao. Even then one who appends his signature ,kwani yeye ni robot ? Can’t he reason and feel these turkana people deserve better ???
Same as your kid tells you jump into fire and you jump in and blame it on the kid . Didn’t you know the fire will burn you before you jumped in? ? Ama mnataka nifanye nini?
The people of Alaska are treated with respect even though they don’t produce much they only have oil. They are not treated as lesser beings because of that. The people of Alaska are even given dividends from the oil they have. This would be a good thing to do for our friends in Turkana. After all did anyone care about them before the devolved government? We should let them catch up to the rest of Kenya.
Yea but ata wakipewa iyo 10% do you think their problems zitaisha ama zitareduce if they cannot account for the funds allocated to them by the gava izi wanataka kuongezewa ndiyo watawezana n am not talking about the people no am talking about their leaders…na watu bado watu wanalialia corruption sijui president isnt doing enough …i think their is some kind of misconception izi funds sii za mapeasants zitapotelea kwa hao kina nanok mnatetea.#only in Kenya