There are too many red flags on this Adani airport construction proposal that we should no longer engage in any discussion about it.
This matter became public through a leaked document. Why the government would initiate a discussion with a foreign entity to absolute exclusion of key stakeholders must worry everyone. Were it not for one Nelson Amenya, even MPs and the Senate would have known of it too late.
PPP projects in development and running airports are not a novelty. In an environment of fiscal pressure, it has become a preferable model for large infrastructure projects the world over. However, there are always key considerations before the final contract is signed.
That begs the question, why Adani? Is Adani the only company interested in such a project? Did the government do an expression of interest, and did it consider any other company? The likely answer is no.
Going by various submissions, the Adani deal was a long-concluded matter, and any other pending process would have just been a formality. Before he exited the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, former CS Kipchumba Murkomen spoke with a lot of conviction that the project for expansion of the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport would take off soon.
At the time, no one knew about Adani, but at least the government was honest that it was seeking a PPP arrangement. In short, the government had already approved terms of engagement proposed by Adani, including the risk of Kenyans losing jobs.
Procedurally, the best way to get a company to take part in a PPP project is through competitive bidding. That way, the government is bound to get a better deal. A privately initiated PPP project is a sure red flag.
I believe if all the government wants is to refurbish JKIA, then we can do it internally at a fairer cost and without risking sanctity of such a critical infrastructure.
The over Sh200 billion as is in the Adani proposal are enough to build a completely new airport. Rwanda is building a new airport at a near-similar cost in Bugesera.
The credibility of Adani Company is questionable if a number of news reports are anything to go by. These are more than enough reasons for the government to just pull back and pause everything.
However, if it opts to proceed with the company, Kenyans will be at liberty to believe the allegations that money did exchange hands. There are even more grave fears about the eventual beneficiaries of the revenue to be generated within the agreement.
Now that the government has insisted there should be no hullabaloo about a mere proposal, the jury is already out about what key stakeholders think. When the process gets to public participation stage, the committee involved should not waste much time because people have already spoken and said NO TO ADANI.
