Tag: Kenya
#SafaricomKPMGScandal: My 2 cents and a chapatti of wandering through the actions of the company who tries to silence the Scandal and the leaked information to the Public!

There we’re a KPMG Audit leak of the Safaricom Telecom Company in Kenya, which was released through a blogger called Cyprian. He found and released article relating to a Draft Report, that he in the latest twist released on Twitter. Why I comment on it, after even releasing it. It is to brighten the days of the corruption hunters and pundits. To prove that not all writers can be bought. You feel me right? Why I say that because money talks, everybody knows that right?

While this report circulated and even some findings came to the limelight, CEO Bob Collymore we’re able to dodge the release as the blogger had to take down his article and later even send the Blogger direct text message. The blogger got now after this text messages from Red Cross and Inter Religious Council of Kenya. And he have nothing to do with this organizations before, so there are something up with the Safaricom model of the moment.
The Safaricom CEO continues with suspect behavior as even reports of entering Kenyan Media-houses with Police Officers following his tail. When he, the CEO of Safaricom Bob Collymore where he initially threaten them. If they did exposes the maladministration of the company into the society and into the public sphere through the media.
The marked interest for this company is the structure and its importance in Kenya. The Government of Kenya owns 60% of it and the rest is owned by Vodafone, which means 40% of it is in the private interest. The Markie exposure of the company is not only how much having been squash the Audit that we’re unfortunately released, but by what extent the leadership have gone to silence it.
And when a business, a company and their leaders get orders from the “mother-company” to shut the noise, when they order media-houses and threaten them with the Police Officers holding the hands of the CEO; then you know that there are shady people eating the cakes that was not intended to. The Safariacom have even ordered an advertisement operation with ScanGroup for Ksh. 2.1bn and that proves to what extent they goes to bury the legality of the KPMG audit.

The Public Petition of Michael Ngugi that states this:
“That it is unfortunate though that Safaricom is in itself a corrupt institution and as evidenced by the forensic audit report from KPGM which examines the period of September 2013 to August 2015. Copy Enclosed. In this report many instances of malpractices have been cited in regards to tender processes, award and general shortcomings of ethical practice and governance as far as supplier selection and management are concerned” (…)”THAT, Safaricom in contravention of their own Procurement policy as enshrined in their Policies and Procedure manual and use it only selectively to suit selfish interests of some senior staff who collude to defraud the company and deny well deserving Kenyan companies a chance to offer services even after satisfying all the necessary requirements in a tender and emerging victorious. This is an act of impunity and no one in Kenya is above the law, justice must therefore be pursued for the victims for this scheme” (..,)”That I confirm that I am aware that it is not possible to raise any issue regarding Safaricom with any organ, institution or media because Safaricom has corruptly infiltrated all segments of society and used its corporate advising might and huge financial resources to oppress any dissent or complaints”.

There even been more implications between the Media Houses and the Bob Collymore scandal of the KPMG reports as central men in the media have been bribed to silence or not talk about the company in an unfavorable way, these men are for instance Tom Mshindi (Nation Media Group) and Linus Kaiaki (NTV Kenya). So there are many big fishes who are being fried and more to come as the information getting leaked. These men are not alone, as Safaricom even bribed Citizen TV Kenya, who got Ksh. 50m to not highlight the report on the TV screen on the 9th May of 2016.
As an example of the leaked information that Safaricom wants to silence is the M-Pesa Second Generation agreement we’re the report stated this:
“Safaricom partnered with Huawei to upgrade its M-Pesa mobile money payments system, a decision which we were driven by Michael Joseph (Joseph) the previous Chief Executive Officer. We were informed by Donald Twesiga, the former Head of IT Service Operations (Twesiga) that a procurement process had been initiated which included major international vendors, but Joseph singlehandedly settled on Huawei. We were further informed that although the cost of this project was borne largely by Safaricom, it does not retain exclusive use of intellectual property on the project and similar mobile money projects can be rolled out in other territories without any benefits to Safaricom. We were also informed that there was no evidence of negotiation of prices on this project between Safaricom and Huawei”.

When you have agreements like this and there are nobody earning on it, directly the Safaricom company doesn’t earn on an upgrade, but still does it, without even negotiation of prices or have followed procedure of procurement process, it sends signals of direct corruption between the men who has been behind the agreement between Safaricom and Huwei, that can be the case as the levels of transparent procurement for the company and their rules for doing so. That should be even more important by a significant company of this size; the level of government ownership and the state of importance the M-Pesa mobile money have in Kenya alone. Just when you thought M-Pesa was dirty enough, even Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) have reported in recent days that the profits made through M-Pesa mobile money have gone direct to a Tax-Haven so that the Kenyan Government can’t earn the direct tax money on the revenue. Another way of securing higher yields of profits for the CEO and the board, also second owner of the Company Vodafone!
That the CEO of Safaricom Bob Collymore have denied and claimed that the reports is lies, is expected; a man who is earning so much and have such treasures would not jump on the sword, as he is used to tool with government entities and media as they are waiting for the money and for the services rendered by the Safaricom. With the knowledge of the monies that Safaricom can bring Media-Houses and needed Ad-Revenue, Aga Khan of the Nation Media Group (NMG) would easily be corrupt; that has been showed in the Ugandan General Election period where he was donated land to publish a positive poll in the same manner as the one was delivered towards the 2011 election there. So if Safaricom can come with good money than they surely can silence the media for their cause.

And as there was a blogger who got the hunch of the report and dropped certain knowledge of what it did say, the Safaricom could use the media they are paying high salaries to and gives lots of advertisement revenue.
Just to give you an indication on the value of money there earned inside the board of Safaricom, CEO Bob Collymore earned in the last 12 months, the net amount of Ksh. 109.5. So it’s a well-paid position and he has earned a living salary and surely could afford to pay of somebody just with his salary alone. Though I am sure the company coffers have enough to do and to silence the ones that need to be.
As much it is not only the Huawei and Safricom deal that is questionable when comes to Procurement procedure, you have also this one.

“In relation to the Fibre Space partnership dated 10th April 2015, the following documents were not provided;
- Invoices and payments to card manufacturers in relation to Safaricom purchased cards and purchase orders.
- Actual payment patterns with supporting payment documentation.
- A documented breakdown of the aggregate revenues to date Safaricom has earned from the partnership and;
- Information on the distribution count and location of all the points of sale and cards by Safaricom in relation to the partnership.
- A velocity report from the CMS indicating the time taken at each stage of contract drafting was not provided for review.
- The CBS reconciliations done by the Credit Control together with the resulting payable refunds for the month of July 2015 provided for review was no approved by HOD credit control” (thaVibe.com, 12.05.2016).
So again you see shade agreement between the Safaricom and co-partnership with Fibre Space. This again shows the agreement done without due diligence or even a review, henceforth done directly instead of through the procurement agreement. This does not say who did what, but certainly something suspicious.

That Bob Collymore have to enter a Media House with Police Officers to silence them and think that this can go away, pay for Blogger Awards while the Report is circulating, even I got the papers, and I am miles away from shores and streets of Nairobi. I know the boats are in Mombasa, still the point is that I, far away can get them and paste them on my blog. So the old fashion fear driven policy of Collymore doesn’t work in the digital age. The exposed stays exposed. That is why Wikileaks and Panamapapers can do as they please.
So Safaricom has showed its face is not accountable, transparent or just in their actions as their procurement and agreements are made for the beneficiaries and not after procedure. This is just the ones that have surfaced through the reported pages from the draft report. What more that are under surface is something only Collymore and the rest of Board of Safaricom knows. The Company and owners of Vodafone only knows the whole picture, as the Government also is connected and the ability to silence the media as the Ad Revenue counter the Integrity of the set amount of journalist or editors ethical behavior. Peace.
#SafaricomKPMGScandal: Pages from the Draft report in question of 18th February 2016










Press Statement: “Federal Republic of Somalia wishes to express its grave reservation on the closure of Dadaab and Kakuma Refugee Camp (12.05.2016)

My letter to the Minister of Interior Affairs of Kenya Hon. Joseph Nkaissery on the planned closing of Daadab Refugee Camp

Dear Sir Honorable Joseph Nkaissery!
I write to you again, I know it’s been a month or so, but the actions have to be questioned and the liability of the actions you do Honourable Minister or Cabinet Secretary of the Ministry of Interior Affairs and Coordination of National Government. You have an ability of making decisions that area allowed to be questioned.
I am not writing to you because I am not defending terrorism, because I am not, the Garissa University attack, the Lamu Attack and Westgate attack in Nairobi was sad and unfortunate as innocent Kenyans died while Islamist, went in and killed without impunity; that has to be answered and those actions should not control the agenda of the country, but give way to the liberties and freedoms that the citizens are rights to have. While the Government finds ways of charging and hunting down the men who are behind these hideous crimes.

But, the use of Terrorism to close down Daadab Refugee Camp seems a bit premature.
As this was even stated by academics on the matter in 2014:
“The speaker said that the Dadaab Camp is not an engine for radicalization; rather, it is an engine of moderation. Poverty and displacement do not automatically lead to radicalization. There is a growing need for more anthropological research on the topic. An entire generation has grown up in peace; it is not scarred by war” (…)”More political and economic analysis is needed on this issue. The Kenyans claim to be in charge but al Shabaab remains everywhere. The Kenyans do not have the level of control that they claim. A lot of the radicalism that is currently being seen in Mombasa is very local. Al-Shabaab is also present in Nairobi. Many al-Shabaab suspects are Kenyan nationals. Terrorism is a wider, urban East African problem” (Rawlence, 2014).
So if the man behind Open Society have claims two years ago that can counter your arguments now for closing, can you bring evidence can show that Rawlence is totally wrong, please honourable Sir?
Hon. Joseph Nkaissery I hate to do this as this is your set of laws and the ones that set the guidelines for your government until you get the National Assembly or Parliament to change it with a general vote.

So for now the law of Kenyan Refugee Act of 2006 says this:
“18. No Person shall be refused entry into Kenya, expelled, extradited from Kenya or returned to any other country or to subject any similar measure if, as result of such refusal, expulsion, return or other measure, such person is compelled to return or remain in the country where –
- The person may be subject to prosecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or public opinion;
- The person’s life, physical integrity or liberty would be threatened on account of external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in part of whole of that country”.
The law is clear and doesn’t seem that it is too important for you, if these laws is still applied then the closure still gives them rights as Refugees or as legal persons in the territory where you are the Cabinet Ministry Nkaissery. I know that shouldn’t be too much to ask that the Kenyan Government are following the laws of the land? Of does this not apply to the refugees and the ones that have left Somalia, Ethiopia or South Sudan because of oppression and aggression there?
In 2015 John Kerry and the United States pledged $40m directly to the Refugee Camps, so they must have had a say in the planned closure you had of the camps last year, with the new idea of trying to do it again.

Here is his latest statement to you Hon. Nkaissery:
“We strongly urge the Government of Kenya to maintain its longstanding leadership role in protecting and sheltering victims of violence and trauma, consistent with its international obligations. We call on Kenya to uphold these international obligations and not forcibly repatriate refugees” (…)”We call on Kenya to continue its support for refugees and voluntary return efforts, and to continue to work with UNHCR and partner nations to find durable solutions that respect humanitarian standards and uphold international law. We also urge the Government of Kenya to honor its responsibilities, including the 2013 Tripartite Agreement on the voluntary repatriation of Somali refugees living in Kenya” (…)”We remain committed to working with Kenya to support voluntary returns that are safe, dignified and consistent with international law, as well as helping Kenya to address security concerns presented by al-Shabaab and other extremist groups” (Kerry, 2016).
So Honourable Minister CS. John Nkaissery, you have lots of responsibility and have to swallow lots of crap in your days in office, while Deputy President William Ruto and President Uhuru Kenyatta got to do the fun stuff and sign decrees and words into laws. You have to clean up behind the scenes and act upon the ideas these two men have. So I am sure the stress is coming to you and therefore is so seldom that the pundits and public see you charming smile.

We are not at the point that the Terrorism claim, I don’t feel you can validate that as a reason for the closure of the camp, unless you have evidence you send to me Hon. Nkaissery. I am an advisory, but until I am proven wrong, I will not change my mind. As you are playing your cards this way, is to try filtering the world away from assassination plot that we’re on Jacob Juma or is the something else you want the world to forget? The Pre-Election violence twice in Nairobi under Nairobi Metropolitan Police Commander Japhet Koome towards the Cord Demonstrations, is this right or am I wrong hon. Nkaissery?
But to get back to reality and not the conspiracies that might run as the Kenyan Government said they would close the Refugee Camps last year in 2015. When as I said United States Government pledged more money to run them and filter it through the United Nations programs.
Seems more like this is a way of scaring the international groups, multinational organizations and all to give direct funds to Kenyan Government instead of taking it direct to the Refugee Camp. If not I hope you get a Task Force that really looks into your allegations and also delivers the findings so they can be looked through and are more believable than the financials from Donald Trump.
There are questions that remains Hon. Nkaissery because the issues and the rights, even the laws that are still viable and official guidelines for the refugees and citizens in Kenya, make a brother like me question the rhetoric you have used and arguments. So please take care of the action you do. This here will be greater stain on the Jubilee Alliance Party (JAP), and you don’t want that as a Cabinet Secretary that creates tensions with the allies abroad that both gives your army funding and equipment together with direct budget aid. That would not be wise… Though I understand Hon. Nkaissery that you care about the refugees and their safety even if you close them; because for many of them have been living there for a long time and they could be by many means Kenyan citizens with Somali ethnicity for instance.

Would you clear the Kibera slum and the areas around as the Rawlence claimed that the terrorist and extremist was more likely in Urban areas, and Kibera is Urban and also uncontrolled in some ways. So why are you not focused on the development of Kibera that you have Dr. Evan Kidero, the loyal Governor can access the situation for you and find ways to monitor the extremist that might be trained there? Because, if a so-called expert Rawlence can be some people who becomes violent in urban areas, and that is not politely the Dadaab Refugee Camp. So it must be more political than actual be the reason for the closing as they either want to show character or independence over the Multi-National Organization and the International donors, as a sovereign state.
Hon. Nkaissery, we both know that Kenya is a Sovereign State and because of that have freedoms to do what they want on their territory, but they have international obligation. You and I know that Kenya has internal laws and also have to keep their international laws considering the rights of refugees. Still, you can act this way, but will you consider the implications and the ramifications of this. Even if the European states are considering and signing agreements to ship the Syrian Refugees from Greece, to Turkey; that does not send direct flight back to Palmyra, Syria, as much as you don’t want to be remembered for sending back Somali Refugees from Dadaaab Refugee Camp to hostels in Mogadishu, Somalia. Or will you?

I am just worried for these innocent fleeing human beings who has fled their homeland for safety in Kenya, as much as I am worried for the Syrian who are fleeing to Greece and being transported to Turkey. I condemn that and would condemn if the Kenyan transport these men and woman to Mogadishu in the midst of fighting and continuation of AMISOM mission in Somalia.
I know I am nobody, but I had to address it and ask you why you want to, as I also question quickly the biggest argument for closing. As I don’t believe until there are serious report and evidence of the terrorism threat from Dadaab Refugee Camp, and why you don’t check more Kibera slums of Nairobi, but that would hurt your pride, right? Wouldn’t it Hon. Nkaissery, or am I wrong?
Peace.
Best Regard
Write of Minbane.
Reference:
Rawlence, Ben – ‘Somali Refugees in Kenya: The Case of the Dadaab Camp’ (08.05.2014) link: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_document/2014Somali%20Refugees%20in%20Kenya.pdf
Kerry, John – ‘On Kenya’s Announcement to End Hosting of Refugees’ (11.05.2016) link: http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/05/257113.htm
Kenya shrugs off calls from UN to rethink plan to shut Daadab refugee camp (Youtube-Clip)
“The Kenyan government has shrugged off calls from the United Nations to rethink its decision to shut the Daadab refugee camp down. It says the first refugees will be repatriated later this year” (CCTV Africa, 2016).
Government Statement and Update on the Repatriation of Refugees and Scheduled Closure of Dadaab Refugee Camp (11.05.2016)




Press Release: Appeal for Information Regarding the Murder of the Late Jacob Juma (11.05.2016)


How the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (IIEC) of Kenya ordered Electoral Material and by doing so; the IIEC Officials secured themselves on Government funds applied for Electoral Materials!

The main issue is that there are this printing company named Smith & Ouzman (S&O) Limited, who was hired to work for Interim Independent Electoral Commission (IIEC) in Kenya. They have had a shady agreement between the Government Organization of the IIEC with certain individuals inside the S&O who made the deals and contracts that will be explained.
This is taken from the Court Document from the Crown Court a.k.a. Southwark Court in London, and the court case this information is taken from is the “Regina V. Christopher Smith, Nicholas Smith, Timothy Forrester, Abdirahman Omar and Smith and Ouzman Limited”. The Southwark Court Note that we’re made by Mark Bryant-Heron and Trevor Archer on the 30th September 2014, and where this information comes from and says how the embezzlement, fraud and corrupt Kenyan Officials used the IIEC to gain profits for themselves. Take a look!

Corrupt Officials and how the agreement happens:
“This included obtaining printed materials for those elections e.g. ballot papers. The count alleges agreement between the defendants and the agent, Trevy James Oyombra in the case of count 1, to make corrupt payments in relation to the award of and payment for contracts to print materials” (…)“A legitimate business transaction using an agent. The agent is retained by the supplier under a contract to use his best efforts on behalf of the supplier in the country the agent is operating in. Negotiations between the supplier and the customer will often include the agent who is there and can speak to employees of the customer. As a result of successful negotiations a contract (agreement) is reached between supplier and customer for the supply of goods which are duly shipped over and the customer is invoiced by the supplier. The customer pays the invoice amount and the supplier pays the agent his fee, which is usually a commission payment in this case.”
So you have the Agent Trevy James Oyombra of IIEC who made the agreement with S&O in order for IIEC to get the material and at the same to fix the invoice so they could corrupt own employees and embezzlement. This here was managed that way. As told here:
“The customer pays for that supply of goods in the normal way, but there is an additional payment to the corrupt official in accordance with the corrupt agreement between the supplier and that official. A corrupt payment in advance of delivery of the goods may properly be described as an inducement. A corrupt payment after delivery may properly be described as a reward. Both an inducement and a reward for showing favour to S&O fall within the definition of the alleged offences in this case”.
As it continues to describe like this:
“The dealings of S&O with the Independent Interim Electoral Commission in Kenya. The defendants charged with this offence are Christopher Smith, Nicholas Smith and the company, S&O. Their agent in Kenya was Trevy James Oyombra (“Trevy”). He was a party to the agreement to commit this offence and bribe officials. He was appointed by S&O as their agent on 5/10/08”.
How they did it:
“The defendants and the agent Trevy James Oyombra (known as Trevy) agreed to bribe a number of officials at the IIEC”.
How long we’re the tenders lasting:
“The defendants are Christopher Smith, Nicholas Smith and S&O. The agent in Kenya was, again, Trevy. There were three agreements for S&O to supply materials to the KNEC. The tender for the first of these contracts was submitted by S&O in September 2009 and the final payment by KNEC to S&O was made in November 2010”.
The value of the contracts between the S&O and the IIEC:
“The value of the seven contracts was £1,377,257. S&O received ten payments from the IIEC from 22/9/09 to 8/12/10 in the total sum of £1,366,976. From that sum S&O retained £980,834. £380,859 was paid to Trevy’s bank account. Of that sum the prosecution say that it was agreed between the defendants and the agent Trevy that £337,993 was to be paid on by Trevy in bribes to the IIEC officials”.

Direct Payment to IIEC Officials:
“The payments received by S&O from the KNEC for supplying these examination materials was £282,339. The sterling equivalent of £9,604 was paid to the agent Trevy. It was agreed that he was to pay on the sterling equivalent of £2,803 ($4,000) to officials. In addition S&O paid £5,200 directly to two officials, Paul Wasanga and Ephraim Wanderi”.
So know we see the Trevy James Oyombra to able to fix the contract deals money directly to Paul Wasanga and Ephraim Wanderi in the Interim Independent Electoral Commission of Kenya, so that they could have tenders and agreements between S&O and the IIEC. So they would have the election material from them. This was the £5,200 to the men of the IIEC officials, which is a corrupt direct deal together with the £980,000 that was in the agreement payment to S&O. The IIEC got the rest and went officially to Trevy, but after that we’re directed to the Officials of the IIEC so the £380,000. So they had an agreement that £390,400 in bribes in between the agent, S&O and the IIEC.

A timeline for some of the transactions:
Contract 1: Shinyalu and Bomachoge By-Election
“On the 16th June 2009, Nicholas Smith wrote to the IIEC chairman, Ahmed Issack Hassan [Ex AFM 0293]. The letter referred to a meeting between S&O and Hassan at IIEC’s offices in Nairobi and quotes for printing voter registration forms, voter ID cards and ballot papers for the urgent Shinyalu and Bomachoge by-election. The price quoted was £32,526. The 200,000 voter ID cards and 20,000 voter registration (“OMR”) forms were quickly produced by S&O and delivered on 27/6/09” (…)”On 29/6/09 Nick Smith sent Trevy the “attached calculation of payment for the by election requirements”, adding that Trevy had been allotted £750 for his efforts. [AFM 0292]. Trevy replied by email on the same date 29/6/09, asking for his £750 to be increased to £1,000. Nicholas Smith replied the following day, 30/6/09, saying he had just texted Trevy and attaching what he described as the accurate figures” (…)”The remainder off that contract price is divided up between funds from the contract for S&O: £21,950 and a sum of £10,576 for “comm”. Comm, the prosecution suggest is short for “commission”. The email traffic makes clear who this “comm” is for. In the email of 29/6/09, which Nicholas Smith replied to, Trevy made it clear that it was necessary to distribute this sum covertly by sending it to Trevy’s account” (…)”Wiring to Trevy’s account would avoid suspicions according to Trevy and, Trevy informed Nicholas Smith, Karani had been in communication with the seven other members of the committee about this. He added that they (IIEC officials) had been informed that “this would be done” [i.e. payment made to the officials] after S&O received their money. In a further email from Trevy the following day, 30/6/09” (…)”On 4/8/09, Trevy e mailed Nicholas Smith: [AFM 0261]: “i had a meeting i the morning and assured mr. karani and es team that once you are paid that’s when you will send over something and karani got it clear from you at the hilton that this will be done on payment. once that has been done i told em we shall all go to my bank and ill give the chicken to karani although karani hasnt told em how much it is but that’s their business. i think all this came about since they are anxious and very broke.” (…)”In the event S&O shipped 142,350 ballot papers. Nicholas Smith knew about this and gave instruction to his staff to leave the quantity off the shipping invoice” (…)”Nick Smith contacted Trevy about this and Trevy advised Nicholas Smith to let Karani know that the number of ballot papers actually needed was less than 200,000. Trevy stated that he was having breakfast with Karani and others and that payment would be made on the contract as agreed” (…)”The invoice included a price of Ksh 11.52 per ballot paper. This reflected Trevy’s observation in his emails of 30/6/09, where Trevy stated that the commission for the voter forms was just for “the iiec guyz” and that the reason for increasing the price of the ballot papers from 9Ksh to 11Ksh was to pay Trevy his commission” (…)”The total commission figure was shown as £11,236. This reflected the payments to the IIEC officials and the £1,000 for Trevy, less a payment of £250 which had been made by S&O on 11/8/09” (…)”The following day, 25/9/09 S&O sent a payment of £11,576 to Trevy” (…)”Nicholas Smith then emailed Trevy: “Karani has been in touch saying he hasn’t heard from you. I guess he is after chicken. Please confirm all is distributed.”.
Here you can see how the S&O facilitated the bribes to the IIEC as they got the contract for the Shinyalu and Bomachoge By-Election, the amount of bribes are staggering and proves how the Electoral Commission Officials ate from the top to give the Contract to the S&O. The agent facilitated it all as using the Commission on the Agreement as the bribes to the Officials and using “Chickens” to explain the values of bribes and if they we’re paid the officials.

Contract 2: 2009-2010 Voter ID forms.
“S&O secured a contract with IIEC to produce 18 million voter registration cards. The value of the contract was £278,838” (…)”On 30/12/09 Trevy emailed Nicholas Smith enclosing the details of other companies who had tendered, saying “have a scrutiny of these bidders and let’s talk after.” [AFM 0254] Trevy emailed Nicholas Smith again on the same day, 30/12/09, [AFM 0253] saying that “when it comes to handling these guys (chicken) I would prefer that if dena or karani or anyone tries to come directly to you please stik to your guns and let them come and discuss non official issues with me and tha involves chicken” (…)”The entries for ‘commission’ come to a total of £88,840. It is worth noting that after deducting the cost of the commission payments, airfreight and the cost of subcontracting the production of half of the forms, S&O only kept £96,579, out of which they had to pay the costs of producing half the forms” (…)”The pricing summary has the following entries “Comm K” £69,840, “Comm D + com” £6,000, “Comm O + H” £3,000 and “Comm T” £10,000. This summary therefore divides up the commission payments. 4 days after S&O wrote accepting the contract, Trevy emailed Nicholas Smith on 4/2/10, stating that “Dena and Chirchir will be in London and would like to meet you on Monday.” He stated they “were looking for a figure of 10 million ksh for emself, commissioners and others.” He advised Nicholas Smith to let them know the commission the “board have decided was 6000 pounds as we’ve earlier discussed to everyon without saying names…..dont mention uve met kebs or oswago or hamida.” Trevy went on to state that “these commissioners are seriously fronting and I know they are with punchlines….they want to reap where they do not sow.” (…)”The total amount demanded in bribes (“For emself, commissioners and others”) of 10 million ksh (Kenyan shillings) in Feb 2010 was worth £79,000. This comprises the three commission figures other than “Comm T”. “Comm K” of £69,840 is likely to be either a reference to KEBS, the Kenyan Bureau of Standards, referred to in Trevy’s email, or is possible a reference to Karani. “Comm D + com” of £6,000 is consistent with a reference to Dena and the commissioners and reflects the £6,000 mentioned in Trevy’s email. “Comm O + H” of £3,000 is consistent with a reference to Oswago, the IIEC Chief Electoral Officer, and Hamida, an individual connected to Oswago. Finally “Comm T” of £10,000 refers to Trevy’s commission. The bribes figure (removing Trevy’s commission) is a sterling figure of £78,840 which is close to the sterling equivalent of the 10 million ksh referred to by Trevy in his email” (…)”On 2/6/10 Nicholas Smith instructed S&O’s account department [AFM 0226] to pay to Trevy the balance of £44,420, which was included in a larger sum of £121,676.64 (the balance of which related to contract 3 below) which was paid to Trevy by S&O that day. [AFM 0013] The payment had been preceded by requests from Trevy for payment. On 1/6/10 Trevy emailed Nicholas Smith, chasing the chicken: “ive spoken to the ceo on delivery of forms and he will get back to me tomorrow. hes so happy iv mentioned that chicken will be with me on Friday or saturday. i hope you will be able to make the debit transactions to me today to facilitate me to have the payments done to them by saturday latest.” [AFM 0226] Nicholas Smith, apparently unsurprised by the confirmation that bribes were to be paid, replied “Our Finance Director isn’t in today so we can’t get this payment out today, but I will ensure it is made tomorrow.” The following day Nicholas Smith instructed that the balance to Trevy be paid”.
Another contract between the S&O to the IIEC Officials through the agents that used there terms to bribe them for the agreement. The bribe was in the range of £88,840 plus the agreed payment to the agents for facilitating it as the IIEC and S&O wanted all to earn money on the state coffers. The share value and price shows how much higher the price of the products becomes with the bribes, as the production cost the same as the bribes, so the price for production become the double and without would have been about half. That together with the commission and direct commission, together with the initial commission is the ones that make the production and procurement of the electoral material expensive in this matter!

Contract 3: Referendum Ballot Papers.
“This was a substantial contract to supply approximately 14.6 million ballot papers and associated forms for a Referendum. The items were dispatched in July 2010. The total contract value was £431,161.15. Trevy’s fee for this contract was £11,872.05” (…)”The prosecution case is that bribes intended for officials at the IIEC and the Kenyan Bureau of Standards (“KEBS”) totalled £108,203.82, which was reduced to £105,193.82 to take account of “hotel” costs paid by S&O during a 3-4 day visit of IIEC officials to S&O’s factory on 14th July 20103” (…)”Trevy was upbeat about S&O’s prospects of landing this lucrative contract. He reported that S&O were popular by this time with the IIEC because of previous corrupt payments which had by this time been paid or were agreed and awaiting payment and because S&O managed to combine the corrupt payments with reliable quality of product” (…)”Trevy explained that the officials wanted to take the opportunity while they were at the IIEC to make money: “Please also be advised that these guys are also here to make money […] These people are only in IIEC till the end of the year so they are after making money and they will play game with whoever puts what they want. They’ve reiterated that its better to make money with us coz we don’t compromise on quality but at the same time they want to make money”. Trevy added that he had spoken to the CEO (Chief Electoral Officer, Oswago) on the telephone and he explained how a figure of KSh 0.92 (as part of the bid price) was split between bribes for public officials at the KEBS, commissioners at the IIEC, Oswago and Dena. Trevy stated that Oswago told him he did not want to work with one of S&O’s competitors” (…)”By contrast, Oswago had assured Trevy that he would continue to work with S&O, who had paid him bribes in the past and would continue to pay him bribes in the future: “He believes in S&O and that’s what is important and we’ve given him money for the voters card and after payment for balance and pouches we are set to give him Gbp 21000 that Kshs 2,100,000. So he knows we can deliver both materially and money and I think this good will is important” (…)”Trevy went on to discuss the level of bribes for officials at KEBS, which, at KSh 0.20 per ballot paper was lower than that proposed by the officials at IIEC (KSh 0.20 per ballot paper) and Trevy’s own fee (KSh 0.10 per ballot paper), which would all be added to S&O’s price: “KEBS [Kenyan Bureau of Standards] are key guys so lets shelve theirs to Ksh 0. 20 this and any other person who will be in the technical committee. I was of getting Ksh 0.10. This makes a total commission of Kshs 0.85 to be loaded to your price” (…)”On 12th May 2010, S&O produced their bid submission for the tender. The prices had been converted into Sterling. The total price for 18 million ballot papers was £448,200” (…)”Trevy then went on to report that the IIEC would pay S&O in advance for the Referendum ballot papers because it suited them to pay before the close of their financial year: “IIEC will pay us in advance for referendum ballot papers because of the close of financial year in June.” (…)”if S&O received an advance payment, they would pay immediately: “If it is a straight advance payment then of course we are happy, and the chickens will fly straight away”. (i.e. the bribes would be paid straight away)” (…)”On 7th June 2010, Nick Smith informed Trevy that S&O wanted to start printing the Referendum ballot papers on Monday 14th June in order to deliver them by 10th July [AFM 0224]. Four batches of Referendum ballot papers (totalling 14.51 million ballot papers) were dispatched between 20th June and 28th July 2010. The shipping invoices show the total value of those papers was £361,299.01. [AFM 0218, AFM 0217, AFM 0199 and AFM 0203]. The specific value for the last 10,000 ballot papers invoiced the IIEC £3,977.19 for a further 121,900 ballot papers and associated forms” (…)”On 14th July 2010, S&O hosted a 3-4 day visit from five officials from the IIEC, namely Hassan, Nyaundi, Oswago, Tororey and Sang [AFM 0172]. Nick Smith directed other staff to make arrangements for this visit, which included booking hotel accommodation for the officials. Hotel costs of £3,010 were later deducted from the bribes paid to the officials, which appear to relate to this visit” (…)”Trevy and Nick Smith agreed to invoice the IIEC for £7,550 for these papers. Trevy reported that he had told the IIEC the cost would be between “5 – 8 thousand pounds”. Nick Smith then suggested the invoice be made out for £7,400 to “subsidise the hassle-factor for the packing lists as there is a lot of time being spent on this” [AFM 0216]. The eventual invoice gave a price of £7,550 [AFM 0309]. Nick Smith told Trevy “I have included the usual commission in this, plus some extra special Trevy consultancy fee…” (…)”S&O made the payments on 25th August and 7th October 2010, sending Trevy payments totalling £172,837.27. The prosecution case that this included £117,065.87 to cover Trevy’s fee (£11,872.05) and the bribes to be distributed to officials in respect of this contract (£108,203.82 minus £3,010 “hotel” costs)”.

This here is not the whole of cases in the note or the whole picture; this is just a show off the viable transaction from the IIEC to their hired company to produce the needed electoral material or ballots through the Smith & Ouzman (S&O). They did this with a set-up through an agent Trevy who fixed the agreement between the IIEC, KEBS and other direct officials. This have been put on the top of the needed monies for the contract either as “chickens” or “commission” has been showed in the document and to the London Court.
This here was a collaborate approach as the company earned money on dealing this way with the IIEC and the Kenyans and continued getting contracts; not condemning the corrupt behavior, but even Trevy at one point felt the IIEC Officials was this on the 4th February 2010: “these commissioners are seriously fronting and I know they are with punchlines…. they want to reap where they do not sow.”
Even the Agent who facilitated the government officials and let them go with their corrupt behavior and securing them government funds to embezzle through fake invoices and with add-ons that was going to the Officials and not to the Company that sold the material. Even he was angered that they we’re eating without working for what they are sowing. This proves a certain mentality amongst the IIEC that they wanted it this way and wanted “commission” for the buy of government procurement. It was because with these arrangements the Officials got money and the Company made sure they could eat well on the monies spent by the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (IIEC) on Electoral Material to the elections held by the commission. This proves that the need for strong procedure and oversight by ombudsmen to stop this kind of embezzlement and fraud of the government funds. So that the money actually just goes to the Electoral Material, and not as extra fried chickens eaten by the Officials!
That is enough for today. Peace.

