Sababu ya msingi ndo hiyo hiyo uliyoitaja mwanzo!
Na hapa tukumbushane jambo... ile USD 10 Billion ni gharama za mradi, lakini a moment mradi ukishaanza kufanya kazi, pia kutakuwa na operation costs, ambazo na zenyewe zimekuwa considered!
So, hiyo miaka 40 (according to original claim), ya ku-recover gharama za mradi na kupata faida! Na kwavile kutakuwa na suala la faida, ina maana operational costs kwa kipindi cha mradi na zenyewe zipo accounted!
All in all, kwa kawaida kama itatumika BOT, more often than not, Investor huwa anakaa na mradi kwa muda usiopungua miaka 30. Sasa hapa pa "why 40 na isiwe 20 au 30" ndio sehemu hasa ambayo watu walitakiwa kukaa chini na kukuna kichwa kuliko suala la ardhi ambalo hata tukiwapa miaka 33, baadae tutawaongezea tu kwa sababu sheria inaruhusu kufanya hivyo!!
Kinyume chake, hapa kwenye Transfer Period, hata kama una-save Miaka 5... huo ni mshindi mkubwa sana!
Well it looks all rosy in theory but in practice kwenye mkataba wowote the devil is in the details.
Bila ya kujua nitty gritty elements especially in relation to the commercial aspects its hard to say how many years are fair, depending on income generated that said 15 years could be fair or 99 years but it all depends on the revenue generated.
Uhalisia ni kwamba nchi yetu na majirani wote ambao targets wa kutumia bandari ni maskini kwa sasa and are likely to grow over the years at what pace no ones knows?
Sasa uwezi kuweka stagnant income projections kwenye bandari tu lazima tujue limitations zao kama tunawapa bandari kwa miaka 99 muhimu pia kuwa na viwango vya wao kukusanya as return and profit in the same accounting year na ikizidi ni hela ya serikari; similar wasipofikia icho kiwango how they will be compensated in the future.
Hayo maswala ni muhimu maana huko mbele hizi nchi zinavyokuwa we expect imports and exports also to increase, na isitoshe serikari itakuwa inawekeza kwenye miundombinu ambayo kwa sasa pia wanafanya na wao watavuna wateja kupitia hiyo miradi how are they going to contribute in the future na faida yao not their return of investment money.
Bado ujaongelea biashara za ardhini zitajikita na nini, why should they be treated differently to someone say like Dangote who has invested heavily somewhere else?
Ni hivi hili swala ni complicated na lina hitaji kuliangalia kwa nadharia za kiuchumi na biashara, finance, siasa, marketing and contract law.
Kusema tu sijui miaka 33 or 99 ni fair ivyo serikari inakosea kwa kusuasua in my opinion it’s just childish bila ya kuelewa elements zilizopo kwenye huo mkataba especially income projections zao walizotumia na economic model.
Ndio maana naona busara kwanza ni kulazimisha serikari iweke wazi aspects za hiyo mikataba na viongozi wana kila sababu ya kuona hilo linafanyika kwanza.
If anything the ACCACIA saga should be a public lesson kwamba serikarini tumejaza vimeo which handled the whole thing badly from the beginning and it ended with unfair contact terms; mtu awezi chimba for more than 25 years mpaka leo tuwe tunagawana nae 50/50 na bado asset alizoleta sio mali ya serikari wakati amekuwa akitukata hizo hela na gharama za finance cost anatupa sisi juu.
Hizo ndio akili gani si tungekopa tukachimba wenyewe hizo dhahabu sasa yeye alikuwa na shughuli gani kama mtaji wenyewe kumbe kakopa bank na interest tunakwata sisi, asset alizoleta pia amekuwa anatukata halafu bado mali yake.
Ndio kama huu mkataba ni mzuri kwenye picha hila terms zenyewe zikoje? Bila ya kujua hilo it doesn’t make sense to firmly be an advocate for or against; for the most part the argument won’t be justifiable inakuwa ni kujisemea tu kama post ya Zitto there is no meaningful logic behind.
