Search

Africa's Public Procurement & Entrepreneurship Research Initiative – APPERI

Category

Courts

Nigeria, South Africa At War Over Seized $9.3 Million Cash


360News

September 19,  2014

Detectives in South Africa have rejected Nigerian government’s explanations of the purpose of the $9.3 million cash seized from two Nigerians and an Israeli as “flawed and riddled with discrepancies”.

The suspects told South African authorities that the money was meant for the procurement of arms for Nigerian intelligence agencies.

“… Although various explanations about the money were given to the investigating officer, these explanations were flawed and riddled with discrepancies,” the South African prosecution agency said in a statement sent to this newspaper.

The jet used to ferry the money is owned by Ayo Oritsejafor, who heads the Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN.
Mr. Oritsejafor, a cleric, said he is not aware of the arms deal. He said although he owns the aircraft, it was managed by another company, Eagle Air Company, which in turn, leased the jet to a third party, Green Coast Produce Limited.

The Nigerian government in an unsigned statement, Tuesday, said it has provided South African authorities with documents and receipts to prove that the transaction was “legitimate.”

Nigerian security officials also said that it was normal practice to procure arms with cash.

“The Federal Government has submitted relevant data and documents on the transaction to South Africa and insisted that the transaction was legitimate. It also clarified that the funds were not laundered or smuggled for any covert manoeuvres. No launderer will be audacious to fly into a country in a chartered jet with such a huge cash,” a statement by PRNigeria, an agency that regularly disseminates media statements for the military, police and other security agencies in Nigeria explained.

The statement tallies with what top security officials told PREMIUM TIMES in confidence that the money was legit as the government decided to buy the arms secretly; because the U.S. government had allegedly blocked its efforts to buy arms openly.

However, the government’s explanation does not seem to be gaining traction with South African investigators as the Asset Forfeiture Unit, AFU, of the National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa, NPA, has obtained a court order to freeze the money.

The NPA, in a statement sent to PREMIUM TIMES Wednesday said that the manner in which the money was brought into the country breached the country’s laws that deal with the transfer of foreign exchange of such proportion.

“The money was initially detained by the South African Revenue Service (SARS) as it was not disclosed or declared at customs, and was above the prescribed legal limit for the amount of cash that may be brought into the country,” it said in a statement.

Investigators also cast serious doubt on the Nigerian government’s explanation that the money was meant for the procurement of arms and that it has provided documents and receipt to back its legitimacy, raising serious concern that suspects might have been in the process of laundering the money before it was intercepted.

The NPA said its investigation shows that Tier One Services Group, the firm Nigerian government claimed it wanted to procure the arms from, is not authorised to sell or rent military hardware.

“In court papers, the NPA submitted evidence that Tier One is not registered with the National Conventional Arms Control Committee and is thus not authorised to enter into any agreements regarding the sale and/or rental of military equipment,” the statement read.

Tier One has apparently issued an invoice to a Cyprus based company, ESD International Group Ltd, ESD, in respect of the procurement of armaments and helicopters to be delivered to Nigeria. However, South African investigators said the time when the invoice was prepared and the time the money was brought in threw up some serious issues of its true intent.

The money was ferried to South Africa less than a week from the date the invoice was prepared (September 8, 2014).
The involvement of a Cyprus based company also heightens the suspicion that this may be a case of classical money laundering. Cyprus is notorious for its secretive banking system, which attracts shady characters and corrupt politicians looking to dry-clean ill-gotten funds.

The NPA added that the transaction did not follow normal procedure in the procurement of the kind of equipment it was alleged to have been meant for.

Op-Ed: We’re withdrawing from the Arms Procurement Commission, and here’s why


Daily Maverick

By A FEINSTEIN, P HOLDEN AND H VAN VUUREN

August 29, 2014

The Arms Deal was a uniquely damaging moment in our young democratic history. It was concluded after decades of uncontrolled spending on foreign and internal wars by the apartheid regime. From the signing of the contracts in 1999 up to R70 billion of public money continues to be spent on weapons of questionable utility. The country was not and is not facing any meaningful military threat. But rather the most pressing problems that faced us then as they do now are inequality, poverty and unemployment

Since its inception the Arms Deal has been dogged by well supported allegations of corruption. We together with many other activists have consistently challenged the State to fully investigate and prosecute these allegations. Four previous investigations have failed to fully probe the Arms Deal.

We have engaged with these matters in different capacities over many years and we have done this out of the commitment to the primacy of the Constitution and the rule of law in our democracy. Given this commitment we believe that all allegations of corruption must be investigated and prosecuted without fear and favour.

After careful consideration, with great disappointment we have decided to withdraw all participation in the Seriti Commission of Inquiry into the R70 billion Arms Deal.

The appointment of the Commission raised great expectations that the truth would finally be established, and that this would challenge the interests of politicians, middlemen and large corporations in one of the most corrupt industries in the world. The Commission had the prospect of serving not only South Africans but all people across the globe campaigning against the devastating impact of corruption in the arms trade.

The Commission has failed on both accounts. It has missed a historic opportunity to support the struggle for transparency and accountability of the powerful.

We have not made our decision lightly. It follows nearly two years of actively trying to support the work of the Commission, assisted by an exceptional pro bono legal team led by Lawyers for Human Rights.

We have taken our decision due to serious and fatal concerns we have regarding the manner in which the Commission has conducted itself. There are four key reasons why we have decided to withdraw:

  1. The Chairman, Judge Willie Seriti, indicated that he was not interested in hearing evidence from witnesses about documents that they had not themselves written. Judge Seriti made this ruling during the testimony of Member of Parliament Mr David Maynier. This prevented Mr Maynier from giving any substantive evidence, as he was not the author of documents that emanated from investigations or government departments. This is particularly disturbing as this limitation was not applied to previous witnesses who were supportive of the Arms Deal. The implication of this ruling is that only those who have been involved in the Arms Deal can introduce evidence. How the Commission intends to discover the truth by only hearing from participants in the Deal is a mystery.

The Chair has also ruled that witnesses should only speak to corruption allegations of which they have personal knowledge. The logical conclusion of this ruling is that only those who have been corrupted, who have corrupted others, or who were intermediaries in such corruption, can give evidence of it. It is obvious that all of these parties have an interest in hiding the truth. Why would the Chair choose to rely solely on their opinions?

We have conducted extensive research into the Arms Deal. We have analysed thousands of documents, and interviewed people who are able to point to where evidence of corruption is likely to be found. We were not direct participants in the Arms Deal. If we are not allowed to talk to documents that we have not written, nor speak to corruption allegations based on documentary evidence, there is no point in our appearing as witnesses. This process will serve to undermine the critics without addressing the evidence they have accumulated. This can only serve to protect the corrupt and compromised.

In response to our attempt to resolve this issue, the Commission has informed us in their correspondence of 27 August 2014 that “The decision [to admit evidence of which a witness not the author, nor facts within a witness’ personal knowledge] will be influenced by the circumstances of each case, including the document’s relevance to the terms of reference and the purpose for which it is sought to be used.” There is no basis on which we can have any expectation that we will be permitted to give evidence on matters not within our personal knowledge, and rely on documents we are not the authors of. The Commission’s rulings to date in respect of other ‘critic’ witnesses, and the Commission’s rulings to date in respect of our cross-examination of other witnesses, clearly indicate the contrary. The Commission has not undertaken that it will now reverse its previous approach. (If it did so, procedural fairness would require the recall of a number of witnesses). Read more here.

How cars and smartphones ‘inflated’ Huawei’s NetOne Zimbabwe


ITWebAfrica

By Gareth van Zyl

Cars, smartphones and solar powered cell towers were among items that inflated an initial price tag of Chinese telecommunications equipment firm Huawei’s controversial network upgrade deal for Zimbabwean state-owned mobile operator NetOne.

This is according to documents a source has provided to ITWeb Africa regarding the network upgrade deal, which is facing a court case in Harare amid allegations that the over $200 million contract was awarded illegally.

Zimbabwean-born Tafadzwa Muguti, who lives in South Africa, has taken NetOne, Zimbabwe’s State Procurement Board (SPB), Huawei and the Anti-Corruption Commission of Zimbabwe to Harare’s administrative court over the awarding of the $200 million contract.

The businessman, who is the chief executive officer of investment group Africapaciti, wants to find out how Huawei won the NetOne contract, even though the Chinese company did not go through an official tender process.

Because NetOne is a state-owned entity, it is obliged to adhere to Zimbabwe’s procurement laws with regard to the awarding of contracts, Muguti has argued.

Muguti also alleges the contract was awarded to Huawei despite Zimbabwe’s SPB having expressed concerns over an inflated price for the project. The SPB is the first respondent in Muguti’s court case.

And documents detailing the record of proceedings regarding the awarding of the deal, which are in the hands of ITWeb Africa, illustrate the SPB’s initial concerns about the Huawei deal.

In a July 2013 letter from NetOne to the SPB, in which the mobile operator addresses concerns about the Huawei deal to the SPB, an amount of $298.6 million is quoted for the upgrade, which hinged on a loan from China’s Exim Bank.

That figure was then dropped to $251 million, according to the documents, and ultimately — as the documents later reveal — this figure was cut to $218 million.

NetOne officials, in the document, argued that only Huawei could carry out the upgrade deal as the mobile network’s infrastructure is from the Chinese telecommunications firm.

But the State Procurement Board then raised the following issues, which are summarised below:

  • “Members noted with concern that the Secretariat had failed to properly analyse the matter for logical presentation to the board.”
  • “The presentation was jumbled up and comprised of disparate requirements including Upgrades, New Equipment and Construction of a Building.”
  • “The matter was also hastily presented as an urgent item without adequate background and factual information.”
  • “Background was inadequate and lazy.”
  • “There was no clear justification why the current requirements should not go to tender, in light of the unclear relationships between the projects.”

The documents reveal that on 27 June 2013, the State Procurement Board deferred the pending of the contract to await further input.

The board also raised concerns about “the procurement of smartphones and tablets for resale to the public, which are not part of the network upgrade.”

Furthermore, the documents also highlight concerns that Huawei had quoted inflated prices for equipment that may not help with a widespread upgrade to next generation LTE.

Items that the deal was initially planned to include were as follows, according to the record of proceedings:

  • Purchase of 1336 2.75G base stations
  • Purchase of 600 3G base stations
  • Purchase of 400 4G base station
  • Supply of 500 diesel generators to serve as stand-by power at base station sites

NetOne in the documentation does argue that Huawei has quoted it at a lower price for base stations at $170,000 rather than the market price of $180,000.

In the documents, the Zimbabwe’s ministry for transport, communications and infrastructure development, did write to the SPB calling for the upgrade to be given to Huawei.

The ministry argued the deal could help NetOne boost its services, subscriber base and contribute to Zimbabwe’s ICT development.

But a letter from the Transport department then outlines how the project had been scaled down.

“Some of the key components that have either been scaled down or removed as a result, include Base station Towers that have been reduced by half, removal of four wheel drive vehicles for project implementation and maintenance, solar powered Base Stations that were meant to serve as coverage gap fillers, the online charge system, where NetOne will later have to expand the existing system to meet the increased subscribers to be connected,” says the letter.

The response goes on to allay fears regarding the number of 4G stations, as the Transport department said that these would be deployed in highly dense urban areas to cater for demand.

The Huawei-NetOne contract, though, was publicly announced in July while deliberations continued in the background.

And in that same month, concerns about the deal were communicated from the State Procurement Board in a record of proceedings.

Among these included:

  • “Members noted that there were allegations of overpricing some aspects of the project components.”
  • “Members noted with concern that according to the minute from the Secretary for Transport, Communications and Infrastructure Development to Treasury dated June 19, 2013, NetOne and Huawei Technologies of China had already signed a contract for the Works without authority.”

A board resolution on the 18th of July then further deferred the matter.

Further reading into the documents also reveals that the Post & Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe but that concerns existed that the watchdog had not consulted the relevant industry experts.

The contract price in the documents goes down then to $218 million, while reports in July talk of a deal that was just over $200 million

Court case postponed

Subsequently, on 19 November, Tafadzwa Muguti’s court case against the relevant parties was postponed.

However, in court documents, the SPB has outline that it did finally approve the Huawei deal, despite its concerns outlined in the record of proceedings.

The board then further highlights how it consulted advice from three government ministries and telecommunication and IT engineers.

The board goes on to say in court papers that the urgency of the upgrade drove its decision.

As a result, the board asked that the court reject Muguti’s appeal as “frivolous and vexatious.”

The board also then asks that the court finds that its decision was “prudent and feasible.”

Finally, the board asks that the court throws out the appeal with costs for a lack of merit.

Huawei responds

Chinese telecommunications equipment firm, Huawei, meanwhile has also denied alleged corruption regarding the deal.

“For the project with NetOne, we strictly abide by all procurement laws and regulations in Zimbabwe, our target is to help Zimbabwe people enjoy their life through communication at affordable price,” Jacky Zhang, who works with Huawei Technologies Zambia but manages communications for Zimbabwe, told ITWeb Africa.

“The allegation for over-inflated is not base on the truth,” Zhang told ITWeb Africa.

ITWeb Africa also asked NetOne for comment, but the company has not responded to emails.

Indian arms deal probe exonerates Denel


Defenseweb.com

By Oscar Nkala

October 2, 2013

India’s Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) has closed its eight-year long corruption probe into South African arms manufacturer Denel following allegations that it paid kickbacks to Vara Associates, a company based in the Isle of Man, to help secure five deals between July 1999 and April 2005, to supply the Indian Army with 1 000 anti-material rifles and over 300 000 rounds of ammunition.

Indian defence procurement rules and the country’s Prevention of Corruption Act expressly forbid original equipment manufacturers who bid for contracts with the army from hiring any middlemen or intermediaries to influence or ‘swing’ the adjudication of the contracting process.

According to reports from the Indian capital New Delhi, the CBI dropped the case on Monday after eight of years of trans-national investigations in South Africa, the Isle of Man, Switzerland and the UK failed to prove the allegations levelled against Denel.

The probe started in June 2005, two months after the Indian government stopped all dealings with Denel amid allegations that the South African company had paid ‘commission’ to the value of 12.75 per cent of the total worth of the arms deals secured with the Indian Army to Vara Associates, based in the tax-haven Isle of Man, to ‘swing’ the five contracts in its favour.

The contracts involved the supply of 700 NTW-20 anti-material rifles (bunker-busting and light armour penetrating), knocked-down kits for another 300 rifles of the same make and 398 000 rounds of ammunition. According the CBI case opened in June 2005, allegations against Denel were that it had made the pay-offs to Vara Associates, accused by investigators of acting as an intermediary, disguised as technical assistance and consultancy fees.

In the course of its eight-year probe, the CBI sent requests for information to judicial and investigative authorities in the UK, South Africa, the Isle of Man and Switzerland which all reported that they could not find any evidence to support the charges against Denel.

Several employees of Vara Associates and the Indian Ministry of Defence were being probed alongside Denel on allegations of conniving with Vara Associates to swing the five contracts in question in favour of the South African company.

After the Denel deal fell through, India’s Ordnance Factory Tiruchirappalli began manufacturing the locally developed Vidhwansak multi-calibre anti-materiel rifle, which bears many similarities to the NTW-20. Available in 14.5 mm, 12.7 mm and 20 mm calibres, it has an effective range of approximately 2 000 metres.

CORRUPTION WATCH:Procurement law must be simplified


Mar 31, 2013 | Corruption Watch

Is our government just really bad at procurement, or is there a deeper problem with the law that applies to tendering?

IT SEEMS that every other week there is a different scandal involving procurement. Most tenders seem to land up in court, with service providers squabbling over the spoils of government spending. Is our government just really bad at procurement, or is there a deeper problem with the law that applies to tendering? Perplexed

Dear Perplexed

We believe that it is a bit of both. While there is no denying that some of the bureaucrats responsible for procurement are corrupt (as are some of the private companies that bid for contracts), the law governing public procurement has become increasingly complicated.

In our view, procurement law has now become so complicated that it may be undermining service delivery. For example, many organs of state are unable to spend their budgets and infrastructure grants. The complexity of procurement law contributes to this problem by paralysing civil servants who become hyper-cautious in their desire to avoid infringing the law.

Part of the problem is that there are so many different levels of procurement law.

A well-intentioned and honest administrator will find that the following layers of law govern procurement:

Section 217 of the constitution expressly deals with government procurement. It provides that when an organ of state contracts for goods or services, it must do so “in accordance with a system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective”.

The award of a tender constitutes administrative action in terms of the constitution. As such, the award of tenders is subject to review under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.

Various pieces of legislation govern the budgeting process, internal controls and the requirement that people historically disadvantaged by unfair discrimination be favoured.

Each organ of state has its own supply chain management policy, which must be followed by its bureaucrats when engaging in procurement.

Any information held by an organ of state relating to the tender process is potentially affected by the Promotion of Access to Information Act, and may be the subject of requests for information by other affected parties.

The contract between the relevant organ of state and the service provider is governed by the common law of contract.

As a result, innumerable pitfalls await even the most well-intentioned administrator.

The competitive nature of tender processes and the enormous financial benefits to be gained from contracts for government procurement are a powerful incentive for unsuccessful parties to litigate, which they often do.

Their lawyers scrutinise every step in the process for compliance with the various laws and procedures, and pounce on every real or perceived irregularity. Very few administrative processes are entirely free from any misstep, and when one is found, litigation soon follows.

In addition, bureaucrats are required to account to government oversight bodies in respect of expenditure, including internal accounting officers and the Treasury. The procurement process may also be subjected to scrutiny by the auditor-general and the public protector.

Even where litigation by disgruntled parties fails, or investigations by other organs of state result in a clean bill of health, the effect of such litigation and investigation is to delay the provision of the service in question.

Procurement processes are often suspended while disputes are resolved, which can mean delays of years in service delivery.

We are therefore of the view that legal reforms to simplify and speed up procurement are justified. Any reform would have to ensure that accountability mechanisms remain in place, and that the law retains proper safeguards for detecting corruption and maladministration.

That would require careful balancing between swift, effective service provision and a functioning oversight mechanism.

* This article was first published in Sunday Times: Business Times

 

Rethinking the Fight Against Corruption


Brookings News

By Daniel Kaufmann

Fighting corruption requires a new understanding of how the global problem has evolved, for it is bigger and broader than petty bribery or crooked deals in developing countries. Merely adopting a new anti-corruption law, creating another commission, or launching another ‘campaign’ will not get the job done. We can no longer fight corruption by simply fighting corruption alone.

Corruption is a symptom of a larger disease — the failure of institutions and governance, resulting in poor management of revenues and resources and an absence of delivery of public goods and services. We must think beyond anti-corruption rhetoric and traditional tactics. We need to be more strategic and rigorous, identifying and addressing corruption’s underlying causes and examining the weaknesses in key institutions and government policies and practices. We have to focus our efforts on the broader context of governance and accountability. Only then can we see the many other shapes and forms corruption can take and address this epidemic.

Of its many guises, legal corruption is a particularly pernicious one that gets insufficient attention. Legal corruption refers to efforts by companies and individuals to shape law or policies to their advantage, often done quasi-legally, via campaign finance, lobbying or exchange of favors to politicians, regulators and other government officials. It is dealings between venal politicians and powerful financial and industrial executives. In its more extreme form, legal corruption can lead to control of entire states, through the phenomenon dubbed ‘state capture,’ and result in enormous losses for societies.

In many developing countries, legal and illegal corruption coexists, and it has become commonplace for multinational oil and mining companies to collude with elite politicians to deprive citizens of the benefits of their natural resourcesNigeria lost $35 billion over the last 10 years through corruption and mismanagement of its oil industry. The evidence suggests — and the people of these developing countries attest — growth cannot sustain where corruption thrives.

The reach of legal corruption, however, is not limited to countries with weak governments. It has also enabled Wall Street investment banks to unduly influence financial oversight institutions, bringing the U.S. and the global economy to the brink four years ago, and in recent months allowed collusion between U.K. and possibly U.S. banks to fix the global interest rate for their benefit.

This kind of corruption is a complex, multidimensional problem that needs to be confronted at every level. If we, as an international community, are going to get at its core, we need to recognize that improving governmental institutions is key. Good governance only starts with elections and higher levels of transparency. Elections cannot be effective unless they are free, fair and clean, and complemented by real freedom of expression. Transparency with impunity will not bring forth justice or make governments accountable. Broader governance reforms require serious progress in rule of law to make any real, lasting impact. Equally important is a free press. While we have seen progress towards democracy in many parts of the world, roughly two-thirds does not have a fully free media and, in some countries, the movement is backwards.

As crucial is the management of the world’s natural resources. Today, 700 million people, in about 60 countries, live in poverty though they sit atop billions of dollars in oil, gas and minerals. Such abject poverty in the midst of abundance is a call for action. The overwhelming majority of these citizens live in poorly governed countries — those that rate low in corruption control, transparency and accountability. The governance of these resources and the wealth they generate will make or break the development of these nations, and the social, economic, political and security implications will be far and wide.

The future of these resource-rich countries no longer rests mainly on foreign aid but on the extent and effective use of the country’s own resources and how they use them. For that to occur, a focused and concrete approach to improve governance and accountability is critical. Reshaping the fight against corruption into a smarter strategy that integrates the challenge of improving governance and institutions in both the public and private sphere is the way forward.

Senegal’s reforms and red carpets


Africa Report

November 27, 2012

Senegal’s President Macky Sall has slashed government spending to finance new infrastructure projects.

Faced with an audit of Wade-era projects, the opposition says he is playing political games. Dakar has been rolling out the red carpet in recent weeks.

Elected in March on a reform ticket, President Macky Sall is in demand as an interlocutor – whether it is by the World Bank, the UN or France’s President François Hollande, who stopped in Dakar on 12 October en route to his more controversial landing in Kinshasa for the Francophonie summit.

This month, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation is holding its annual development conference in Dakar to salute Senegal’s political achievements.

Dakar’s National Assembly gave Hollande the chance to set out his Africa policy, which he insisted was non-interventionist and non-paternalistic.

Hollande seized the chance for a tête à tête with Sall, seeking his help for the regional effort to tackle the worsening in- security in Mali.

Senegal’s troops, alongside Ghana’s, are regarded as the most professional in the region.

But Sall has plenty of local problems to tackle – such as the perennial rainy-season flooding.

The government’s failure to invest in flood defences was one of the reasons for voters turning against former President Abdoulaye Wade.

In September, Macky Sall pushed through a bill to abolish the Senate, the second chamber in the National Assembly.

He promised that the 767bn CFA francs ($1.5bn) would be used to finance a 10-year plan for effective flood defences, storm drainage and sanitation.

Opponents to Sall’s plan accuse him of partisan plotting.

The Senate was dominated by members of Wade’s [I]Parti Démocratique Sénégalais[/I].

But Sall’s supporters insist the plan reflects the need to cut ballooning government overheads inherited from the Wade era.

The Sall government aims to cut the budget deficit from current levels of 7.4% of gross domestic product down to 4% by 2015.

So far, Sall has closed 59 moribund state institutions, banned first-class travel for civil servants and is selling a presidential jet.

To promote accountability, Sall has published details of all official salaries, declared his own assets and promised to cut salaries at state-run companies to below 5m CFA francs per month.

“Humility, sobriety and rigour should govern our politics,” Sall told The Africa Report’s sister magazine Jeune Afrique after his election.

“I assure you that there will be a profound break from the practices that were in force under my predecessor.”

The new government has quickly launched audits of government departments and projects for evidence of illicit disbursements.

This includes projects run by Wade’s son Karim, such as the 650bn CFA franc energy crisis programme, Plan Takkal.

Britain, France and the United States have pledged cooperation in tracking down stolen money.

Sall rejects claims of political vindictiveness: “The only thing that interests us is that the errors of the past don’t repeat themselves,” he said.

The courts will take cases identified by the audit.

His promise to cut the presidential term from seven to five years with immediate effect won local and international plaudits, as did his agreement with the African Union to set up a special tribunal for Chad’s ex-leader Hissène Habré, in exile in Senegal since 1990.

The Wheels of Corruption


News24

November29, 2012

Corruption is a lethal toxin that kills the spirit of free enterprise and public governance excellence in South Africa. It is a risk and reward game played by ruthless legal-wise people who seduce naïvely ambitious public officials and turn them into criminals.

According to an article published in the Economist in 2011, as much as 20-25% of annual state procurement expenditure in South Africa amounting to around R30 billion is wasted through overpayment and corruption. The auditor-general estimated that R26 billion is wasted or spent “irregularly” in a year. A third of government departments award contracts to officials and close family members, it was reckoned.

Many people in South Africa sacrificed for a free society and the jubilation that came with advent of democracy in 1994. Some of these people benefited handsomely from the fruits of their sacrifices and were rewarded for life, without the aid of corruption.  Some were not so fortunate though. Those who thought that free enterprise would take off without corruption and prejudice made a serious judgemental error. Their sacrifices did not transform into lifetime rewards. They became the first victims of early bouts of the plague of corruption that is now taking its toll in South Africa.

Corruption is the pursuit by dishonest people in devious partnerships and networks with the goal to acquire undue wealth and benefits for members who are prepared to partake in illicit and dodgy behaviour. Corruption is usually taken to mean dishonest or fraudulent conduct by people in positions with influence and power.

Imagine the following scenario from more than a decade ago. A senior black consultant teamed up with a white entrepreneur skilled in program management to start a legitimate program management firm to facilitate the rolling out of much needed municipal services and local economic development in poor communities. Initially the firm succeeds in winning small projects. With repeated successful delivery the scope and value of projects increase to a point where executives in contracting organizations hint that contract benefits must be shared and that firms they hold shares in must also benefit through projects. When one such a senior executive of a public enterprise, which contracted the firm to program manage its market development strategy, stopped payment on a contract to enhance the performance of a municipality, the wheels of corruption revealed itself.

The affected firm lodged a complaint over non-payment with the chief executive of the public enterprise and after an investigation he agreed to institute a process of arbitration. This was when things started to get interesting. It was established that a firm in which the senior public enterprise executive had been given a shareholding was awarded an infrastructure development contract in the same municipality. The project was connected to the scope and budget of the program management contract and payments were made from the budget set aside for the program management firm. It was when this budget ran out that the payments to the program management firm were stopped.

The legal department of the public enterprise engaged a law firm to handle the arbitration process. The arbitration costs would be for the account of the public enterprise. The firm of attorneys engaged by the public enterprise appointed a senior advocate as arbitrator who had previously handled cases for the public enterprise. At the start of the arbitration proceedings the arbitrator offered to withdraw from the case because the public enterprise had been his client in several previous cases. The directors of the aggrieved firm, wary of possible prejudice, accepted his offer. It was agreed that the process would be repeated with a new arbitrator.

The process to appoint a new arbitrator started and after several weeks a new lawyer was appointed as arbitrator by the law firm of the public enterprise. This time the directors of the aggrieved firm were required to foot the bill of the arbitrator and the fees of a lawyer to represent the aggrieved firm as required by Supreme Court rules. These extra costs and the non-payment of contract fees placed the aggrieved firm in financial dire straits.

Several weeks had passed after the hearing when the arbitrator demanded payment from the directors of the aggrieved firm before publishing his ruling. He had to be paid before he would reveal his ruling. When he released his ruling after payment, he had ruled in favour of the public enterprise. After the ruling the distraught directors of the aggrieved firm learnt that the arbitrator had his offices in the same building as the law firm that had appointed him. They then understood the intimate resonance they sensed between the arbitrator and the legal representatives of the public enterprise during the hearings.

The directors of the aggrieved firm felt shattered and decided to close down their firm because of the ruling, the unpredictability of payment by the public sector and the enterprise-unfriendly legal environment.

The set of wheels which moved the corruption to its destructive conclusion comprised of an ineffective procurement leadership structure operating without a policy that prohibits public enterprise officials from taking up shareholding in private firms that deal with the public enterprise; a greedy official with shares in a predatory firm; the owners of the predatory firm who colluded with the official; and a network of legal experts familiar with the arguments, precedent rulings, court rules, contract laws and pressures that are needed to protect the felonious officials of a contracting public enterprise from the claims of cocky entrepreneurs and the victims of corruption.

The appearance of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela who understands the dynamics and networks that drive corruption so well had become the saviour and fountain of hope for entrepreneurs. She has brought closure and redemption to many of those castigated emotionally and financially by corruption. She had become the quiet and gentle enforcer of procurement discipline and public servant ethics. The people salute her and trust that she will continue to be the enemy of corruption and the flame of governance excellence and that she will succeed in removing evil from our society. She has truly become the people’s trusted chucker-out of corruption, fraud, mal-administration and improper enrichment at the expense of the state.

Nigeria Validates Manitoba’s Power-Mangement Contract


Bloomberg

By Elisha Bala-Gbogbo

Nov 21, 2012

Nigeria validated a power-management contract signed by Canada’s Manitoba Hydro Electric Board in July to run the state-owned power utility Transmission Co. of Nigeria after regulatory approval, the Bureau of Public Enterprises, the privatization agency, said.

“We have received ratification from the Bureau of Public Procurement and the contract has been certified,” Chukwuma Nwokoh, a spokesman for the Abuja-based privatization agency said by phone today. Under Nigerian laws, all contracts entered into by the government needs to be certified by the Bureau of Public Procurement.

Reuben Abati, a spokesman for President Goodluck Jonathan, on Nov. 14 announced the cancellation of the contract saying the correct procedure wasn’t followed. Manitoba “did not follow the law strictly” and initial report of the termination was a “misunderstanding,” Jonathan said on Nov. 18 in an interview broadcast on state-rub television NTA

Nigeria, Africa’s top oil producer, is selling majority stakes in power plants and letting private investors buy as much as 60 percent of 11 distribution companies spun out of the former state-owned utility as it seeks private investment to curb power shortages. Blackouts are a daily occurrence in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country with more than 160 million people. Demand for electricity in Nigeria is almost double the supply of about 4,000 megawatts and the government plans to boost output to 14,019 megawatts by 2013.

Bids worth more than $2 billion by companies including Siemens AG (SIE) and Korea Electric Power Corp. (KEP) were approved by the government for the sale of the companies on Oct. 30.

To contact the reporter on this story: Elisha Bala-Gbogbo in Abuja atebalagbogbo@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dulue Mbachu at dmbachu@bloomberg.net

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: