In a highly surprising ruling, the Tanzania's Court of Appeal has ordered the cash-strapped Tanzania Electricity Supply Company (Tanesco) to pay Vulture fund Dowans Tz Ltd $77.5 million (Tsh125.6 billion) for breach of contract.It upheld the decision that was made by the London-based International Chamber Commerce (ICC) which had awarded Dowans $65.8 million (Tsh106.6 billion) in a case it filed against the Tanesco. The case was over an alleged breach of contract. Tanesco will now have to pay interest as well on the outstanding amount.The government-owned Tanesco has been struggling over a mountain of debt and the order to pay up is likely to cripple it completely.As matters stand now, it has no funds to fix its dilapidated infrastructure, pay wages and meet its obligations to the public.The case in the Court of Appeal was Tanesco's last ditch attempt to wriggle out of the matter. It must now find $77.5 million (Tsh125.6 billion) or face a winding up petition.Last September 18, it had appealed against the awards to Dowans Tz Ltd and its parent company Dowans Holdings (Costa Rica). Both companies are associated with controversial Tanzanian tycoon and politician Rostam Aziz (pictured), who quit as Treasurer of the Ruling Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) and as an MP in the wake of a public outcry over the scandal.
The case between Tanesco and Dowans came to the limelight during training seminar organised by the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU) to train lawyers from the region in tackling corruption and, in particular, the threat of Vulture Funds.Indeed, the Tanesco/Dowans case was used as a case study of how Vulture Funds operate. They buy debt owed by either government or public utilities through the connivance of state officials at throw away prices and then demand premium payment.

The international community has been united in its condemnation of North Korea's defiant nuclear tests and its threat of developing a weapon that could strike the US.Both the US through its former Defence Secretary Mr Leon Panetta and China, which is a close ally of the regime in Pyongyang have stated that it represents a 'serious threat', to world peace. Panetta said, "We've got to be prepared to deal with that.''China in a symbolic departure from its earlier stand has been openly critical. Beijing has expressed its "firm opposition" and urging the North to "not take any actions which might worsen the situation".President Barack Obama said the 'highly provocative act' threatened international peace.In a statement he declared: "The danger posed by North Korea's threatening activities warrants further swift and credible action by the international community."The rash of condemnations come in the wake of North Korea's open defiance of the United Nations after it conducted a successful underground test at the Punggye-ri nuclear site in the north-west of the country. It declared that it would conduct other tests.The UN Security Council, in a special meeting, "strongly condemned" the test and vowed to take action – thought to be tougher sanctions – against Pyongyang.Diplomat East Africa sought to engage both the North Korean ambassador for the East Africa region who is based in Kampala and whose views, due to circumstances beyond our control, will be carried in subsequent issue of this news magazine

There is a general consensus that President Mwai Kibaki has left an indelible mark on East Africa's infrastructure.The just retired third Kenyan president goes down history with the name tag "the infrastructure president". This is not just a rhetoric appendage. The Kenya that Kibaki inherited in 2002 when he took over from President Daniel Moi who had led Kenya for 24 years is not the same 10 years later.To fully understand why Kibaki was deeply concerned in getting Kenya's dilapidated and in some instances non-existent infrastructure back on track, one needs to look back at his profile and what informed his decisions. Just before he was elected Kenyan president in 2002 Kibaki had previewed Kenya's first president Jomo Kenyatta and his 12 year leadership style which allowed technocrats to run government with little interference from the executive. Kibaki lamented that Moi's 24 years saw an outright micro-managing of the state by the presidency. He promised that he will not interfere. And true to his word he did not seek glory from his ministers earning the epithet "hands-off" president.Economic scholars are in agreement that Kenyatta's 12 years were "Kenya's Golden years." This is because the period saw Kenya's economy picking up pretty well despite the oil crisis in the early 70s.Moi's 24 years on the hand have been billed as "Kenya's lost years." No need to belabor this further. Kibaki's 10 years on the other hand are seen as both recovery and transformative years.A keener look at Kibaki's decade as Kenya's chief executive however reveals a visionary who had a wider scope which was not limited to Kenya's borders. Indeed thisis theone aspect that has been ignored by many observers, especially the impact of his Makerere University days where he was an alumnus. Kibaki's fixation with the Kenyan infrastructure and by extension the economy was premised regionally and never nationally. A scrutiny of his pet projects reveals that Kibaki was more attuned to the realization of a fully integrated East African Community (EAC) than a national sphere.
While the seeds were planted in his Makerere years they came to the fore immediately he took over as Kenyan president. Kibaki openly confessed that he was an "East African".

AMBASSADOR OF THE KOREAN REPUBLIC KIM CHAN-WOO says that the window of dialogue with North Korea is open but that this should not be interpreted as a sign of weakness. This follows weeks of tensions on the Korean peninsula with North Korea threatening of nuclear war and demanding recognition as a nuclear weapons state. He was interviewed by DEA'S COMMISSIONING EDITOR JANE MWANGI. Below are excerpts;

Q:Your Excellency, What is your reaction in the wake of recent threats of nuclear attacks by North Korea on the United States, South Korea and Japan by Pyongyang? Even despite the North having a long record of making threats to secure concessions from the United States and South Korea, only to repeat the process later.
A:It is most unfortunate for North Korea to continue provoking the Republic of Korea (South Korea), as this may have a very negative effect on the Korean Peninsula. The Government of the Republic of Korea headed by H.E. President Park Geun-hye, together with Korean people are very much resolute against North Korea's provocations.It should be noted that when North Korea launched nuclear test, the third of its kind, on February 12, 2013, the UN Security Council condemned it in the strongest terms with its resolution 2094. The UN Security Council reaffirmed its decision for North Korea to abandon all nuclear weapons and programs, all weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner.

Q: Any time a nation threatens pre-emptive nuclear war, there is cause for concern. With this recent shift in rhetoric how potent is the threat from North Korea?
A:Even under the threat from North Korea, the market situation in the Republic of Korea is very stable and the international investment hasn't been affected. The Government of the Republic of Korea is now well managing the current volatile situation under the leadership of President Park Geun-hye. The Republic of Korea has a capability to defend itself against any possible provocation. The alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United States, which marks the 60th anniversary this year, has an overwhelming capability to address the North Korean threat.

Q: Indeed, South Korea has remained on guard against any missile launch with President Park Geun-hye extending an offer of talks which the North rejected. However the offer remains on the table. Do you think the North will accept it?
A:I wish to state that the Republic of Korea's offer of talks to North Korea should not be interpreted as a sign of weakness but rather a sense of responsibility to contain any kind of probable crisis and also to maintain peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula. North Korea's insistence on this provocation and rejection of South Korea's extension of an olive branch will only isolate its regime from the international community and deprive its people of basic human needs. The "window of dialogue" is still open.