A Decision by the Central Procurement Board of Namibia (CPBN) to cancel a competitive tender to erect a veterinary cordon fence at a cost of N$126 million as Namibia seeks to combat foot-and-mouth disease has raised more than a few eyebrows.
The tender had previously been awarded to a successful bidder.
While protecting farmers and one of Namibia’s most critical exports deserves praise, cancelling the tender a mere two weeks after awarding it – and then hand-picking another bidder, one who came second in the original bidding process just a week later – is cause for concern.
Transparency in Namibia’s procurement systems cannot be left to chance.
It is imperative. It cannot be treated as an afterthought under the guise of emergency procurement. Millions in taxpayer funds are on the line.
Equally worrying is the fact that abrupt and unplanned cancellations of tenders such as these have a tendency to expose the state to unnecessary and costly litigation.
The CPBN already faces legal action after cancelling a N$540-million school hostel food tender on the instructions of former president Hifikepunye Pohamba.
In that case, the president reportedly ordered the education ministry to “use alternative procurement”.
In both cases, the CPBN cancelled the tenders “because the procurement process did not create or achieve the expected outcome”.
One is left wondering if this forms part of the government’s vision to “enhance measures and increase accountability to prevent corruption in government offices, ministries, and agencies, public enterprises, regional councils, local and traditional authorities, and the private sector” as outlined in the ruling party Swapo’s manifesto.
The same manifesto commits the party to improving “the law-making process and procedures to increase turnover in the legislation development process and provide opportunities for public participation and transparency”.
The CPBN’s latest annual report states that eight projects are on hold because of legal challenges or other problematic issues.
In the same annual report, the CPBN writes that “proceedings before the Supreme Court have proven to be both time consuming and costly”.
Long drawn-out legal processes stall projects that should be contributing to our national developmental agenda.
Namibia cannot afford to unnecessarily haemorrhage funds especially in legal processes that could be avoided.
Last week, the Namibian and United States governments announced a reduction of N$724 million in funding for Namibia’s HIV-AIDS prevention programmes.
As a result, our government will need to find alternative means to bridge this considerable gap.
Just this week, the Ministry of Finance revealed that flaws in the country’s financial system are causing losses of about N$16.7 billion a year.
Tax evasion, trade misinvoicing, corruption and the proceeds of crime are cited as reasons for these significant losses.
These are not amounts to be scoffed at.
While Namibian lawmakers did relatively well to enact laws that enabled the country to escape being greylisted – which would have had a profoundly detrimental effect on our economy – it is clear that much more remains to be done.
So much more.
The N$16.7 billion, for example, is more than the amount allocated to operate one of the country’s most significant ministries, the Ministry of Health and Social Services, for the entire financial year,
Over the past two weeks, we have seen lawmakers walk out of parliament over the nomination of Gerson Sindano as chairperson of the Electoral Commission of Namibia.
His nomination has since been approved by vote.
While concerns over the nomination were not without merit, could it be that opposition lawmakers are more concerned over who will oversee their potential return to parliament in three years than in passing laws that address pressing needs the Namibian people face now?
During the same week, we also saw questions in the parliament about whether honorary PhDs are being used to reward political connections rather than recognise genuine contributions to society.
Do our lawmakers have their priorities right? Could it be that some are confusing serving the people’s interests with serving their own interests?
