3 thoughts on “2018-03-15 | Andand Negeroch Megabit 6 2010”
Greeting Ato Girma and Sheger FM 102.1 Leadership,
My name is Mekuria Haile. You might heard that I have been in a mission of PhD study in South Korea. I am writing this email to reflect on your discussion made dated on March 15, 2018.
Some people, who knew very well about our effort and the contribution we made towards the solution, wrote to me to listen your program especially the message that you conveyed on the conclusion about the main committee. I listened it. I noted that there is a gap on understanding of the solutions forwarded and the task accomplished by the main committee.
In general, your effort to bring the access real-estate case to be the discussion point is well appreciated. I can understand that Sheger took the case very serious and contributing its part in engaging the responsible stakeholders to solve the problem, too. Hence, I respect the initiative and that is why I am giving you this comment otherwise I would have ignored it.
As you understood the complication and complexity of the problem, the strategy of tackling it was long story but let me try to paraphrase in short (in addition to the document you saw) as follows:
First of all, what we did was trying to ensure the transparency of the case. Thus: –
We asked the auditor general, to audit the company’s accounts. You can understand that how tough it was due to miss-management of the transactions and accounting system of the companies.
We asked for the Ethics and Anti-corruption commission to be engaged on the case and support in blocking the people, who were trying to snatch the remaining resource and to sue those who would be accountable based on the audit report.
Wasn’t it worthwhile to recognize bringing these stakeholders to the scene?
The second point was, taking action on those who could be accountable for. Police and the ministry of Justice had been engaged to facilitate the case. They made significant contribution on blocking the land grabbing by those who had some claims. They played significant role in bringing the main founder (Ato Ermias) from abroad. Have you taken this effort into consideration and acknowledged it when you were organizing the program?
The third point was, blocking the transactions among different people and institutions between themselves and access that have connections and claims with access real estate and directly connected with the land issues. Even if there is no any law that support the case, the government made administrative and political decision to be registered on Addis Ababa Land Bank Office. I think this was one of the successful action which was taken to support the house buyers and to minimize the risk of losing the whole asset. This one has been expected to be one of the possible solutions in minimizing the damage of the house buyers. Have you made any comment on this successful action?
The fourth point was, trying to exhaust the possible solutions’ proposal forwarded by and from the company side. If it was successful which would be part of the solutions. If it wasn’t, then in order to establish the association of the buyers that would take the responsibility of managing the case, specially the land and some resources. Besides this the association was expected to making follow up the accountability of the damage that already happened. This was one of the proposal that should be acted as soon as possible. Have you noticed this and asked why has it been delayed up to now instead of blaming the committee that was being before two years?
The fifth one was, special interventions (administrative and political) measures that should be taken have been identified and proposed: –
The land management should be treated as special phenomena to be part of the home buyers’ side to minimize the damage.
The intervention of the Police Commission, Ministry of Justice, the Auditor General, the Ethics and Ant-Corruption Commission, and Court Administration Board are given assignments to make accountable those who should be accountable.
What did you say about these proposals and commented on their importance?
These are just to raise some reminders on the basic issues that had been handled by the main committee in addition to the report you already saw. But denying all these efforts and outcome, you concluded by singling out one person (Mekuria Haile) as your opinion who “messed-up” the case and “left” the country. Hahaha, guys I am finishing my study and returning soon!! For me, I feel that it is unfair as yourself asked excuse about your previous program at the beginning of the March 15, 2018 program that naming people’s name who are not around and can’t defend themselves is unethical. Whereas, you concluded your program by blaming a person even though he isn’t in the country and can’t have opportunity to explain his point. In a matter of chance, you blamed the person who contributed enough (I can say) more than anyone else on lining up the clear problem solving directions and tactics. Of course, the actions were performed not as an individual but as team of senior leadership and the technique committee. The main committee was a composition of the ministers that include the whips of the parliament. It was not proper to single out one person and blame in his absence. This is the petty part of our culture that is getting contagious to professional career that should be properly noticed and cared to be managed.
For your false justification, you mentioned that the issue of real estate law drafting, I can see you did not ask for the ministry. If you were, you could have got the truth. It had been drafted and submitted to the cabinet based on the lessons learned from the previous cases before I left for the study. I hope, you are not going to blame me behalf of the cabinet. Right?
You also raised that I transferred the responsibility to the ministry of trade without any discussion or consultation with H.E. the prime minister. Is this your assumption? If so, it is a wrong assumption. I had discussed with the prime minister and agreed on the way forward and on as to how to proceed. Besides as chairperson of the main committee, we also discussed the issue and decided with consensus in the main committee. I hope, the main committee members didn’t inform you, if at all you try to consult with them.
You said that the main committee “complicated” the case, can you please list the cases that bring you to assert this conclusion? Is there anything that we recommended or proposed wrongly which doesn’t favor the home buyers? I am asking these questions to know if there is any better proposal that might come up through the discussions that you organized or from your study. I noticed that you haven’t brought any new recommendation or new idea which can be additional to the previous proposal. If there is nothing come up different from our previous recommendations then why you concluded like that so? Please, it would be good for the benefit of our country’s betterment to acknowledge those who served their country with their maximum effort so as to encourage for those who are coming to serve the nation.
Blame shifting will not be the solutions for this case apart complicating it more. It would have been ethical to acknowledge those who have made positive contribution instead of hurting them. Of course, It would be morally and ethically correct to blame and provide lesson for those who should be accountable. However, I haven’t noticed this in your conclusion. You preferred to blame the person who is not around to defend himself. Which is ethically and morally wrong. As a journalist you should have investigated further to balance your point before you come to that type of damaging conclusion.
It is still advisable to focus on the implementation of the recommendations made by the previous main committee. I agree as Ato Samuel and other discussants also commented on the way out which the institutions should make tangible actions with urgency to solve the problem by taking it as a pressing issue!!
I believe that it is not your intention to ignore the tasks accomplished by the main committee which is vividly seen and discussants noted. May be, it is due to lack of information and hopefully this must be corrected accordingly. I am also expecting, that you are going to make report on this balanced truth for your audience, too.
Were you at gun point when you read the introductory remark about access real state on your program aired on 06 – Megabit 2010 . How come you conclude and blame Ato Ermias like this compared to what you said about him a week before when he was near you. There was no single mistake (gidfet) on that program and you should never had asked excuse. (my respect for u (Girma) when low when you said that.) ….. I guess if he brings Chinese people or others and finalize building the house why don’t you challenge his idea ( as u promised to bring him again on this day’s 06 – Megabit 2010) . But instead you brought others who just care about their name like bringing the Colonel who pull guns at any one at their disposal….like (may be at u) when u read that introductory remark.
Greeting Ato Girma and Sheger FM 102.1 Leadership,
My name is Mekuria Haile. You might heard that I have been in a mission of PhD study in South Korea. I am writing this email to reflect on your discussion made dated on March 15, 2018.
Some people, who knew very well about our effort and the contribution we made towards the solution, wrote to me to listen your program especially the message that you conveyed on the conclusion about the main committee. I listened it. I noted that there is a gap on understanding of the solutions forwarded and the task accomplished by the main committee.
In general, your effort to bring the access real-estate case to be the discussion point is well appreciated. I can understand that Sheger took the case very serious and contributing its part in engaging the responsible stakeholders to solve the problem, too. Hence, I respect the initiative and that is why I am giving you this comment otherwise I would have ignored it.
As you understood the complication and complexity of the problem, the strategy of tackling it was long story but let me try to paraphrase in short (in addition to the document you saw) as follows:
First of all, what we did was trying to ensure the transparency of the case. Thus: –
We asked the auditor general, to audit the company’s accounts. You can understand that how tough it was due to miss-management of the transactions and accounting system of the companies.
We asked for the Ethics and Anti-corruption commission to be engaged on the case and support in blocking the people, who were trying to snatch the remaining resource and to sue those who would be accountable based on the audit report.
Wasn’t it worthwhile to recognize bringing these stakeholders to the scene?
The second point was, taking action on those who could be accountable for. Police and the ministry of Justice had been engaged to facilitate the case. They made significant contribution on blocking the land grabbing by those who had some claims. They played significant role in bringing the main founder (Ato Ermias) from abroad. Have you taken this effort into consideration and acknowledged it when you were organizing the program?
The third point was, blocking the transactions among different people and institutions between themselves and access that have connections and claims with access real estate and directly connected with the land issues. Even if there is no any law that support the case, the government made administrative and political decision to be registered on Addis Ababa Land Bank Office. I think this was one of the successful action which was taken to support the house buyers and to minimize the risk of losing the whole asset. This one has been expected to be one of the possible solutions in minimizing the damage of the house buyers. Have you made any comment on this successful action?
The fourth point was, trying to exhaust the possible solutions’ proposal forwarded by and from the company side. If it was successful which would be part of the solutions. If it wasn’t, then in order to establish the association of the buyers that would take the responsibility of managing the case, specially the land and some resources. Besides this the association was expected to making follow up the accountability of the damage that already happened. This was one of the proposal that should be acted as soon as possible. Have you noticed this and asked why has it been delayed up to now instead of blaming the committee that was being before two years?
The fifth one was, special interventions (administrative and political) measures that should be taken have been identified and proposed: –
The land management should be treated as special phenomena to be part of the home buyers’ side to minimize the damage.
The intervention of the Police Commission, Ministry of Justice, the Auditor General, the Ethics and Ant-Corruption Commission, and Court Administration Board are given assignments to make accountable those who should be accountable.
What did you say about these proposals and commented on their importance?
These are just to raise some reminders on the basic issues that had been handled by the main committee in addition to the report you already saw. But denying all these efforts and outcome, you concluded by singling out one person (Mekuria Haile) as your opinion who “messed-up” the case and “left” the country. Hahaha, guys I am finishing my study and returning soon!! For me, I feel that it is unfair as yourself asked excuse about your previous program at the beginning of the March 15, 2018 program that naming people’s name who are not around and can’t defend themselves is unethical. Whereas, you concluded your program by blaming a person even though he isn’t in the country and can’t have opportunity to explain his point. In a matter of chance, you blamed the person who contributed enough (I can say) more than anyone else on lining up the clear problem solving directions and tactics. Of course, the actions were performed not as an individual but as team of senior leadership and the technique committee. The main committee was a composition of the ministers that include the whips of the parliament. It was not proper to single out one person and blame in his absence. This is the petty part of our culture that is getting contagious to professional career that should be properly noticed and cared to be managed.
For your false justification, you mentioned that the issue of real estate law drafting, I can see you did not ask for the ministry. If you were, you could have got the truth. It had been drafted and submitted to the cabinet based on the lessons learned from the previous cases before I left for the study. I hope, you are not going to blame me behalf of the cabinet. Right?
You also raised that I transferred the responsibility to the ministry of trade without any discussion or consultation with H.E. the prime minister. Is this your assumption? If so, it is a wrong assumption. I had discussed with the prime minister and agreed on the way forward and on as to how to proceed. Besides as chairperson of the main committee, we also discussed the issue and decided with consensus in the main committee. I hope, the main committee members didn’t inform you, if at all you try to consult with them.
You said that the main committee “complicated” the case, can you please list the cases that bring you to assert this conclusion? Is there anything that we recommended or proposed wrongly which doesn’t favor the home buyers? I am asking these questions to know if there is any better proposal that might come up through the discussions that you organized or from your study. I noticed that you haven’t brought any new recommendation or new idea which can be additional to the previous proposal. If there is nothing come up different from our previous recommendations then why you concluded like that so? Please, it would be good for the benefit of our country’s betterment to acknowledge those who served their country with their maximum effort so as to encourage for those who are coming to serve the nation.
Blame shifting will not be the solutions for this case apart complicating it more. It would have been ethical to acknowledge those who have made positive contribution instead of hurting them. Of course, It would be morally and ethically correct to blame and provide lesson for those who should be accountable. However, I haven’t noticed this in your conclusion. You preferred to blame the person who is not around to defend himself. Which is ethically and morally wrong. As a journalist you should have investigated further to balance your point before you come to that type of damaging conclusion.
It is still advisable to focus on the implementation of the recommendations made by the previous main committee. I agree as Ato Samuel and other discussants also commented on the way out which the institutions should make tangible actions with urgency to solve the problem by taking it as a pressing issue!!
I believe that it is not your intention to ignore the tasks accomplished by the main committee which is vividly seen and discussants noted. May be, it is due to lack of information and hopefully this must be corrected accordingly. I am also expecting, that you are going to make report on this balanced truth for your audience, too.
Best Regards
Mekuria Haile
Hi Ato Girma ,
I have been waiting for your reflection on my comments. Why don’t you want to reply ?
Mekuria
Selam Girma
Were you at gun point when you read the introductory remark about access real state on your program aired on 06 – Megabit 2010 . How come you conclude and blame Ato Ermias like this compared to what you said about him a week before when he was near you. There was no single mistake (gidfet) on that program and you should never had asked excuse. (my respect for u (Girma) when low when you said that.) ….. I guess if he brings Chinese people or others and finalize building the house why don’t you challenge his idea ( as u promised to bring him again on this day’s 06 – Megabit 2010) . But instead you brought others who just care about their name like bringing the Colonel who pull guns at any one at their disposal….like (may be at u) when u read that introductory remark.
A non home buyer