The deal, which relates to the potential lease of Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA), has triggered intense public debate, particularly after it was revealed that Kenya could be liable for compensating Adani in the event of any disruptions.
These disruptions could be caused by court actions, protests, or decisions by Parliament. This outrage follows a recent ruling by Kenya’s High Court, which issued an order that could hinder the government’s plans to lease JKIA to Adani Group.
The court’s move came amid growing concerns that the deal lacked transparency and could jeopardize the country’s interests.
In the leaked agreement, a specific clause indicates that any interruptions to the lease, whether through legal challenges or other forms of resistance, would result in Kenya having to compensate Adani not only for their direct losses but also for any future profits they might have expected from running the airport. This provision has left many Kenyans baffled and infuriated.
Public Outrage Over Compensation Clause
The compensation clause in the agreement has been particularly contentious. Many Kenyans are questioning why such a punitive term was included and who within the government approved it. To them, the fact that the agreement anticipates court interventions or protests is suspicious and points to potential problems with the deal itself.
One social media user expressed concern by saying, "How did someone in the government think this was a great deal that should be rushed? You know they are hiding something when they anticipate legal or legislative actions and try to protect themselves beforehand. That’s a clear red flag."
Other Kenyans echoed similar sentiments, arguing that public participation should have been part of the process. They are demanding more transparency from the government and accountability from those who signed the deal.
Many Kenyans are now calling on the individuals involved in the signing of the agreement, including President William Ruto and Former Transport Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen, to personally compensate Adani if the deal falls through.
They argue that the public was not consulted in any meaningful way, and therefore, it is unfair for the country to bear the financial burden of a deal they were never part of.
A netizen named Karen shared her frustration, stating, “Public participation was ignored, and now we are being told to pay for something we never agreed to. Let those who signed the deal use their own resources to compensate Adani.”
This sentiment was echoed by many others who believe that the country’s leaders should not sign deals that place such a heavy financial burden on the public without proper consultation.
One of the key criticisms of the deal is the lack of public involvement in the decision-making process. Kenyans feel that such a major agreement, which could have far-reaching financial implications, should have involved public participation at various stages.
Many believe that the rushed nature of the deal, coupled with the attempts to protect Adani from losses, shows a disregard for public interest.
Kenyans have taken to social media platforms to voice their disapproval, with hashtags calling for transparency and urging the government to rethink its approach to public-private partnerships.
Some feel that this deal is just another example of the government prioritizing foreign investors at the expense of local citizens.
0 Comments