Botswana is in the storm of procurement corruption that has been left unattended for the longest time. Yet it appears it is difficult if not impossible to craft long-lasting solutions to as far as possible, cure procurement corruption because it continues unabated. President Advocate Duma Boko has of late somewhat suggested direct appointment is the panacea for procurement corruption and importantly that he is intent on pursuing it going forward.
In fact if I may say, he has already started using direct appointment to procure services of a foreign company for the forensic audit of government and her State-Owned Enterprises. I fully agree with the President that procurement corruption is a well-coordinated activity by a well-coordinated cartel from the public and private sectors. I also fully agree with him that the complaints arising out of the tendering processes unduly delay service delivery because of the litigious nature of resolving such complaints.
That is, it takes forever for such complaints to be legally resolved. Truth be told, concerns raised by the President in so far as procurement corruption is concerned have been in the public discourse for as long as one can remember. Yet, the needle has not in earnest, moved.
Read Full Article on The Patriot
[paywall]
While the President is for direct appointment ably aided by the powers conferred on the office he holds, his Vice President and Minister of Finance His Honour Ndaba Gaolathe appears to be singing a different tune. When launching the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority 2024-2028 strategy early this year, the Vice President committed to ensuring transparency and inclusive public procurement in the public sector. He said the core of the strategy is “Doing things right.
Not just doing things, but doing them right, the first time, every time.” Without saying it, the Vice President’s commitment to inclusivity and transparency as the bare minimum to ensuring and attaining public procurement anchored in fairness and equity, is palpably at odds with that of the President because while it is fair to suggest direct appointment is time effective in ensuring delivery, it cannot be disputed that it is shrouded in secrecy. It cannot therefore, by any stretch of the imagination, be suggested that direct appointment embraces inclusivity and transparency. The President himself publicly said he personally knows the persons he invites for direct appointment.
Therein lies the highest possibilities of conflict of interest, bribery, brown envelopes, politically laced benefits of sorts all with the end result of procurement corruption and other forms of malfeasance. The direct appointment process, just like the development manager, runs the highest risk of running into the corruption space owing to the secretive nature of appointing directly. In the circumstances, it is fair to say the outcomes of directly appointing service providers with those of the development manager are the same.
And that is owing to procurement corruption. It is tantamount to the phrase ‘out of the frying pan into the fire.’ I will concede I may be exaggerating but I believe the reader will appreciate where I am coming from. I will harp on the point that procurement corruption thrives where there is real or imagined conflict of interest, there is no transparency and, there are no demonstrable and fair processes to attain what is intended.
It appears political expediency, however benevolent it could be argued, runs roughshod over the universally accepted principles of attaining procurement deliverables. There is every possibility that the risks of the development manager model will obtain in the direct appointment model because of the hidden benefits accruing therein for all the concerned. I argue very strongly that direct appointment is not a panacea for procurement corruption.
Instead of plugging the gaps in the tendering procurement processes which gaps lead to procurement corruption, the President is with the greatest of respect, choosing to ignore the risks for political convenience than anything else. He does not demonstrate the wherewithal and willingness to tighten the procurement law and policies with the same gravitas he does with driving the direct appointment agenda. I would be comfortable if he was saying given the precarious position the country is in in terms of service delivery and timely project delivery, I will as a starting point begin with direct appointments while accelerating the tightening of the tendering gaps and deficiencies.
As it stands, these people are left in the lurch not out of their creation but because firstly, the President looks not willing to reform the procurement regime and secondly, he looks obsessed with his international friends to drive Botswana’s economy thereby outsourcing it to such people at the detriment of Batswana business people. Like already said, moving from the tendering model to the direct appointment is like frantically moving out of a frying pan into the fire. Any opaque procurement process is a fertile ground to breed procurement corruption and no amount of spinning will create the contrary.
The President could be winning the battle but certainly not the war. How I wished he wins the war. The beneficiaries of the development model will be replicated in the direct appointment model thereby perpetuating the cancer of procurement corruption.
We are back as if we never left. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise as always. Judge for Yourself!
[/paywall]
