Kanye Sanitation Project drains national coffers
The Kanye Sanitation Project, initially set at P724.96 million, has drastically exceeded its budget, soaring beyond the government's 25 percent allowable variation threshold.
Kaboyamodimo Raitoko, Director of Technical Services in the Ministry of Water and Human Settlement, faced challenges in justifying the more than 400 percent cost increase.
The ongoing project has now incurred cost overruns of P2.90 billion, pushing the revised contract total to P3.63 billion. Awarded nine years ago to Estate Construction, the project has been plagued with so many red flags that even the blind could see the inevitable collapse.
Appearing before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on Wednesday, Raitoko, a veteran engineer, found himself cornered and ultimately conceded that things had gone terribly wrong and a grave error had occured.
Raitoko, who had accompanied the Ministry’s Accounting Officer, was called to testify under oath to explain the significant cost escalation of the project and what corrective measures were taken.
He admitted that the primary reason for the increased costs was a major error in estimating the geotechnical component of the project. The estimate had initially placed the geotechnical content at just 8 percent, when in reality it exceeded 80 percent.
He noted that the Kanye area is predominantly rocky, and this should have been evident during the design phase, which took place before the project commenced. The initial estimate was prepared by the Ministry, which later appointed consultants to review the design. The percentage of the geotechnical estimate was provided by the consulting firm and subsequently approved by the Ministry.
According to Raitoko, the consulting engineer made a critical mistake—intending to reflect 80 percent, but incorrectly documenting it as 0.8 percent or 80 percent. He emphasised that the engineers, who were environmental geotechnical specialists, were under the same discipline as the consultants.
At that time, the responsibility for geotechnical studies rested entirely with the consulting firm, and a specialist (whose name he could not immediately recall) had conducted the study on their behalf.
When asked whether he could justify this mistake and if it was indeed innocent, Raitoko responded: “As I speak, I would say it was unjustifiable.”
He pointed out that anyone familiar with the terrain in Kanye would immediately recognise the prevalence of exposed rock, often visible at the surface, eliminating the need for excavation in some areas.
Despite the oversight occurring during the design stage, he noted that the issue had not been properly documented or reported at the time.
'In my opinion, the price increase is unjustified. This project was originally conceptualised under the Sanitation and Waste Management initiative a long time ago.
It was later transferred to the Ministry of Minerals, which oversaw the construction phase. However, once it was eventually handed over to the Ministry of Water, there was an opportunity to thoroughly review and revise the project, but unfortunately, that was not done.'
When asked what could have led to such a significant omission by professionals and whether he suspected any ill intent, misconduct, corruption, or theft, Raitoko responded;
'In my view, looking at it from today's perspective—since we do not have full insight into what was happening at the time—one might be inclined to suspect such possibilities.
Especially because when we tried to investigate what really transpired, we were told there was immense pressure for the project to begin immediately.'
Asked whether this constituted professional malpractice and if it had been reported to the relevant engineering regulatory body, Raitoko acknowledged,
'Yes, engineers are regulated, and in any regulated field, this would qualify as malpractice. However, the project is still ongoing, and investigations are continuing to determine exactly what happened.
Ultimately, once we complete the end-of-activity report, we plan to submit it to the Engineers' Professional Body to formally report that malpractice did occur.'
He clarified that the project was not initiated under the current Ministry. It originated within the Sanitation and Waste Management programme, when water-related projects were managed by the
Ministry of Minerals while sanitation was overseen by the Ministry of Environment.
Raitoko agreed that, in his view, the project design should have been given more time for a thorough review to assess whether it was suitable for implementation and aligned with the requirements of the tender.
He stated, “This oversight had significant negative consequences. If you compare this project with the one in Maun, for instance, the scope of work in Kanye involved laying approximately 600 kilometers of pipeline—much of it through extremely hard rock. In some areas, we even had to use explosives to blast through the terrain.
This is because the project used two methods: gravity, which requires deep excavation, and vacuum systems, which are shallower. In contrast, the Maun terrain is not nearly as rocky. Yet the tender price for Kanye was set much lower than it should have been.”
He further emphasised that the initial quoted amount of P724.96 million was fundamentally flawed due to a failure to properly conduct a geotechnical study.
“The real error was proceeding with implementation without allocating sufficient time to thoroughly examine the geotechnical data. Had we done so, we would have realised the initial cost estimate was significantly understated,” he said.
Raitoko also revealed that in 2019, there was an attempt to either cancel and reappoint the same contractor or bring in a new one. However, the termination clause in the existing contract posed a challenge—it would have resulted in even higher costs to terminate than to continue.
“We consulted the then PPADB, informing them that we had exceeded the cost threshold and expressed our desire to terminate the contract and restart the process.
However, we were advised to proceed as necessary. In the end, we couldn’t terminate the contract because the termination clause would have obligated us to pay the contractor an amount far greater than what was practical,” he explained.
When asked why the matter had not yet been reported, given the apparent evidence of malpractice or misrepresentation, Raitoko responded: “That can certainly be done immediately. Typically, such reports are submitted at the conclusion of the project, but as you have rightly pointed out, we can proceed and report it to the Engineers Association. In doing so, we will also include our own resident engineers, as they too failed to fully carry out their responsibilities.”
Raitoko noted that the original tender had been cancelled by the PPADB, but the contractor successfully challenged the decision in court and had the award reinstated. He promised to follow up and provide clarity on the grounds for the court’s decision.
“Had I realised at the time that the geotechnical component was not 8% but rather 80%, I would have halted the project and recommended starting afresh. Unfortunately, that did not happen.”
When asked whether the issue had been formally reported to any authority, the Ministry’s Accounting Officer, Bonolo Khumotaka, confirmed that the matter was reported to the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) after the substantial cost escalation was identified.
However, she acknowledged that those involved from within her Ministry remain employed and continue to draw salaries.
In response, the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) remarked:
“In jurisdictions that take such issues seriously, several people would have already lost their jobs. If we are to demonstrate seriousness, we cannot continue to tolerate this.”
When asked whether the variations had been reported to both the Minister and the President, Khumotaka firmly replied: “I cannot speak to the level of the head of State directly, but I can confirm that the Minister was made aware.”
Adding to her remarks, Raitoko confirmed that his Minister had indeed been informed and was equally shocked by the extent of the cost variance in the Kanye project.
“In fact,” he said, “the Minister instructed us to assess whether the project should be terminated or not, but the binding nature of the contract became the main obstacle.”