Report of the Maize Commission of lnquiry IIts ExcsLLENcy rne HoN. Mzrr JoMo KSNyATTA, M.p., PnssrDsNT eNp ConnalNosn-nI-CHInF oF THE Arurrro Foncrs oF THE RBpusrtc or KrNve, Stlrn Housr, Nlrnosr. Your Excellency, 1. We were appointed a Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act (Cap. 102) "to inquire into the present maize position in Kenya and more particularly- (l) the purported mau:e shortage in Kenya and the reasons therefor; (2) the distribution and marketing of maize throughout Kenya and the machinery therefor; (3) the possible methods of effecting improvements in the maize position and the machinery for the distribution and marketing of maize; (4) the allegations of unfairness, inefficiency, corruption, and black- marketing in the distribution and marketing of maize throughout e Kenya, ,fF- and to report the results of such inquiry, the conclusions arrived at i" and the reasons leading thereto, and to make any rocommendations that the Commissioners may oonsider desirable or necessary." o, 2. Advertisements asking for memoranda and for names of persons who desired to give evidence were insgrted in the Press at the beginning of December. The last date for the submission of memoranda was the 27th De*ember 1965. 3. The Hon. James Nyamweya, M.P., Minister of State, one of the members of the Commission, was absent from the country at the time we were appointed but he returned by the time we started hearing evidence. 4. The first public hearing of the Commission took place at Nairobi on the l0th January 1966. During its work the Commission visited and heard evidence at Nakuru, Mombasa, Kakamega and Kisumu (twice). 5. The Commission met for the hearing of evidence for thirty-seven I days. AII sittings were in public, except that the evidence of one or two witnesses was, in response to applications made by them, taken in camera. l- 6. In all 144 witnesses were examined and fifteen of t[rem had to be recalled to give additional evidence. The number of persons and I organizations submitting written memoranda was eighty-three. A record l;- and transcript of verbal evidence was maintained throughout. I I i , (iil 7. We shall have occasion in the course of this report to refer to several terms descriptive of the types of maize flour usqd in this country. The older term "posho" indicates wholemeal which results from putting maae through the mill without trying to separate bran and germ from the flour. The 'oposho" so defined, is now produced, generally speaking, only by the small hammer mills in the countryside. The term "granulated maize meal" has recently coms into more general use in the milling industry. It means the new type of flour which is nearest to the old-type posho. The new milling machinery is so designed as to produce both "granulated" and "sifted" flour in a single process, in which bran and gefln are first separated from the grain and then a part of bran and germ is added back to a part of the flour to make "granulated maize meal". The balance of the flour makes "sifted" flour, either Grade I or Grade II or partly Grade I and partly Grade II. This sifted flour is more expensive because the loss of weight through the extraction of bran and germ meal is greater. It looks cleaner and many people prefer it to granulated flour and to posho. The term "posho" is commonly used these days---and it is used in this report, unless otherwise stated-to mean both the wholemeal type of maize flour and the granulatod maize meal which latter is also sometimes called Grade III posho or flour, 8. Whenever relevant to the issue before us, we have given a summary of the conclusions of past commissions and committees. The object has not been to point an accusing finger at past Governments but only to reinforce our own findings. This procedure does, however, serye to show a weakness in the method of dealing with the recom- mendations of commissions and committees of inquiry. While we realize that it may not always be possible or politic or even proper to implement all recommendations at once we oonsider that a line should be drawn between those that should and those that should not be implernented. The recommendations in the first category that are not immediately implemented should be kept alive by being reviewed from time to time so that a matter that has been the subject of an accepted recommendation is not overlooked until another commission repeats the recommendation. 9. In the past, a Committee or a Commission of Inquiry has been set up to examine and to report on some aspect of food supply or agricultural production; a large number of witnesses have been called together and their views have been obtained; then, a report has been compiled and published; and the recommendations have been oon- sidered and implemented or rejected or partly implemented and partly rejected, as the circumstances required. There the matter has ended. The next committee or commission has repeated the exercise by I collecting facts in an ad hoc manner and has come to conclusions on a I similar basis. No serious effort has been made permanently to supply lr I I i: at I fl I ir li I t' ! I i l lr t, -L lii (iii) the deficiency of facts. A wealth of information relating to the former Scheduled Area is available for a long period of time. The farmers in this area are educated and can complete printed forms. And a system of planting orders has been in force and statistics have been easy to obtain. In relation to the former Non-scheduled Area, however, reliable comparable figures are available only for one year, namely 1960/61. 10. A few words will not be out of place on the subject of the time taken to submit this report. Compared to some of the past commissions, it would not appear that we have taken an unduly long time to oomplete our work. Whatever delay has taken place was due to two causes. First, many allegations were made by witnesses and these had to be investigated. Secondly, witnesses were slow in sub- mitting memoranda. The last date announced for this was the 27th December, but memoranda continued to come almost to the very end of hearings. The dates on which memoranda from Cabinet Ministers and Permanent Secretaries directly concerned with matters under inquiry were received were as follows: - The Hon. T. J. Mboya, Minister for Economic Planning and Develop- ment, 3rd January 1966. - The Hon. Ngala Mwendwa, Minister for Commerce, Industry and L,G Co'operative Development, 17th January 1966. l The Hon. Paul J. N-eei, Minister for Co-operatives and Marketing in , 1965, l7th February 1 966. The Hon. Bruce McKenzie, Minister for Agricultural and Animal Husbandry, 19th March 1966. The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, 28th December 1965. The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Co-operatives and Marketing, 6th April 1966. The Senior Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Co-operatives and Marketing, 20th December 1965. 11. When we commenced working, the question of procedure had to be decided. In a simple case, this would present no difficulty as the Commission itself could call and examine witnesses. The matters and transactions to be examined by us, however, were many and varied and we knew from the commencement that it would be neces- sary to cross-examine witnesses as to their credibility and as to their part in transactions which had unsavoury aspects. If the Commission itsolf took the initiative in cross-examining witnesses, it might give such witnesses an appearance of hostility. This would be most undesirable in an inquiry like the one with which we have been entrusted. It was nec€ssary, therefore, to devise some other procedure for examining and cross-examining witnesses. I lt lt ilrI I : l, it (iv) I :l 12. The services of Mr. J. S. Rumbold, Q.C., of the Attorney- ir il General's Chambers (hereinafter referred to as State Counsel), were l l' i placed at our disposal. When Mr. Rumbold proceeded to the United i' Kingdom on retirement, Mr. D. J. G. Jones, also of Attorney-Genefal's I Chambers, took his place. We also had the assistance of Superintendent i H. A. Cross and other officers of the Kenya Police. Mr. Rumbold and, i later, Mr. Jones with the assistance of the Police interviewed all the witnesses, who they thought might be able to give useful information to the Commission and statements were taken from them. These statements formed the basis of examination in chief. Copies of such statements were also made available to Counsel for other interested parties who might have to cross-examine such witnesses on behalf of their respective clients. 13. On the 10th January 1966 Mr. Rumbold opened the facts. Thereafter, witnesses were called and examined by him in chief on the statements which they had made. Each witness was then cross- examined by the counsel for other interested parties as well as by the witness's own counsel (if one had been instructed). 14. lf" any party was adversely afferted by evidence given by any l! witness, then the Counsel representing the party so affected was given nL1 the right to call his own client and/or other witnesses to refute such evidence. When such evidence in refutation was offered, then the right ,if to examine witnesses-in-chief was given to the Counsel of the party t calling such evidence and the State Counsel and other Counsel, as might be appropriate, were given an opportunity to cross-examine them.