Turkana County in Kenya is embroiled in a dispute with civil society groups over a Sh258 million oil revenue payment from Tullow Oil Company. The conflict centers around the nature and allocation of the funds received.
Key Players:
1.Turkana County Government:
Michael Eregae: County Executive for Finance, confirmed receipt of Sh258 million from Tullow Oil on June 20, 2024, designated for annual land lease fees.
2.Civil Society Groups:
Turkana Extractives Consortium (TEC):
Thomas Eramram: Chairman of TEC, critical of how the funds are being managed.
Geofrey Ariang’o: Director of TEC, advocates for proper allocation according to the Community Land Act 2016.
Other Groups: Turkana Community Justice Resource Centre, Esanyanait Assembly, Ekalale Assembly.
Dispute Details:
County Government’s Position:
The Sh258 million received is claimed to be for annual land lease fees for 20 acres of community land hosting oil wells in Turkana South and East subcounties.
The county government plans to incorporate this revenue into the Financial Year 2024/25 budget.
Tullow Oil’s Statement:
The payment is for accrued rates, levies, and taxes from 2011 to 2024, according to the company.
Civil Society Groups’ Concerns:
The groups demand clarification on whether the payment was for land lease or compensation.
TEC argues that incorporating the funds into the main revenue account is improper, suggesting that funds from 2016 onwards should be allocated according to the Community Land Act 2016.
They suspect potential misuse of funds by county officials and politicians.
Legal and Community Perspectives:
TEC’s Standpoint:
TEC Chairman Thomas Eramram insists that money from community land leases (20162024) should benefit relevant communities directly, not be treated as general county revenue.
The consortium is prepared to seek legal interpretation of the Community Land Act 2016 if the matter remains unresolved.
Community Reaction:
Turkana South MP John Namoit and Lokichar MCA Samuel Lomodo, alongside Tullow Oil representative Bethwel Sang, have engaged in discussions with the local community, highlighting differing views on fund allocation.
Conclusion:
The disagreement between Turkana County government and civil society groups underscores the complexities in managing oil revenues and community land rights. The resolution of this conflict will likely hinge on clarifications around the nature of the payment and adherence to the Community Land Act 2016.
Related topics: