Web of dubious tenders uncovered at Defence ministry
Startling revelations have plunged the Ministry of Defence into the epicentre of a storm, as a series of wide-ranging corruption allegations grip the ministry, Botswana Guardian can reveal.
The flurry of accusations revolves around a web of procurement activities, sounding an urgent alarm over financial mismanagement and the corrosion of ethical standards. At the core of this uproar lies an intricate wall-hanging of irregularities, intertwined with major tenders administered under the Ministry of Defence and Security.
Botswana Defence Force (BDF) and Botswana Police Services (BPS) which are departments under the defence ministry have been at the centre of this colossal corruption, which allegedly has a web linking both institutions and the parent ministry.
A whistle-blower brought the startling revelations to Botswana Guardian. "I was asked for bribes by ministry procurement officials so I can be given a tender. I was informed money would be given to the Minister Kagiso Mmusi and the party's election campaign, leaving only a small amount for them.”
Efforts to reach the minister on his mobile were futile as he was not taking our calls.
These allegations, if proven true, point to a deeply concerning situation involving corruption at high levels of government. The allegations come at a time when a heap of corruption claims has recently plagued the Defence Ministry, raising serious questions about the overall ethical climate within key government institutions.
Concurrently, political opponents have long raised concerns regarding the potential misuse of Second Transitional National Development Plan for election funding purposes.
A disconcerting transgression centres on the Consultancy Services Tender for the Design and Construction of DSO Office Block at Sir Seretse Khama Barracks (SSKB). What began with an approval at a conservative
budget of P4,439,152.13 has metamorphosed into a staggering variation, soaring to P18,806,861.68, an escalation that breaches the boundaries of propriety by over 400 percent.
This deviation stands in direct defiance of the confines imposed by procurement law (Public Procurement Act) creating a disquieting precedent riddled with legal and ethical transgressions.
Pertinently, the procurement law at 105(2) prescribes that, "Where a variation exceeds the contingency element, the variation may be increased by up to 25 per cent of the original contract price."
However, this particular variation soars beyond the realms of reasonable limits.
The decision to inflate the Architect Fees from P1,101,653.20 to P5,600,576.63, Structural Engineer Fees from P791,116.48 to P3,918,711.78, Quantity Surveyors fees from P1,596,789.73 to P5,932,288.24, Mechanical
Engineers fees from P500,639.21 to P1,493,551.83, and Electrical Engineers Fees from P448,953.51 to P1,861,733.20 - has set alarm bells ringing.
The exorbitant nature of this increase has cast a glaring spotlight on the suspected connection of corruption lurking within the Ministry of Defence, which sanctions such daring and brazen variations.
What is even more astonishing is that these variations are being granted prior to the companies initiating any actual work. A source questioned “could these variations serve as a conduit for siphoning funds, to fund the corruption cartel?”
This unusual procedure not only raises suspicion but also contravenes established legal and ethical standards. Such practices are tantamount to a subversion of the procurement process, allowing funds to potentially find their way into the pockets of those involved in the alleged corruption network.
In response to our enquiry, the BDF Director of Protocol Colonel Magosi Moshagane confirmed the change of the initial consultancy fees from the original costing of P4, 439,152.13 to P18, 806, 861.68. He said this was duly requested for from the Accounting Officer (Permanent Secretary) and was granted.
“Furthermore, please note that the adjustment in fees was based on the fact that consultancy fees are a percentage of an estimated or actual cost as regulated by various statues in each profession.
“It is important to highlight that this significant increase occurred after all essential aspects of the project were captured during scoping,” he said, adding that among the other details included in the scoping which significantly altered the cost is the accommodation units and the kitchen facility which were initially not incorporated.
Furthermore, Col Moshagane indicated that the contract was initially conceived in the 2017/2018 Financial Year but was only awarded in 2023 which is five years later. The adjustment in consultancy fees, he said, also arises from various economic factors such as inflation and value for money over time.
“Please note that the increment in fees is in no way an affront of the Public Procurement Act as it was and accordingly sought for and granted by the Accounting Officer, acting in terms of Public Procurement Regulation 74, this being a percentage-based contract, as opposed to Section 105 of the Act indicated in your questionnaire”, he said.
Col Mogashane said they do not have any knowledge of the tender being a subject of interest to the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) and the BDF remains transparent and statutory obliged to facilitate DCEC for any investigation.
In another disconcerting revelation, a company named Blue Orbit was given a direct appointment of P12 million for a sewer system. These proceedings have come under scrutiny as a 100 percent citizen-owned company (name known to the publication) raised pertinent questions about the selection process.
It complained that given the “existence of 1237 registered companies under works code 05—Water and Sewage Treatment, the preferential treatment of Blue Orbit as a single-source direct appointment is illegal”.
The complainant argues that “Blue Orbit is not the sole provider of the services, is not engaged in the same work at the same site by the same client, there is no emergency situation and the direct appoint contravenes Regulation 14.1 and Regulation 20”.
A report to the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC), has unfolded a wall-hanging of corruption intricately interwoven within the Ministry of Defence's procurement fabric.
The missive casts a piercing light upon a tender, pertaining to the Supply and Delivery of Escort Motorcycles to the Botswana Police Service, that seems to have been deliberately choreographed to favour Brilliant Concepts Pty Ltd.
The entity, cloaked, according to a complainant, in an atmosphere of skepticism due to its “dubious credentials” and absence of prior government experience, raises disturbing questions about the integrity of the selection process. The complainant implies an intricate web of collusion among procurement officials, offering a disturbing glimpse into the concealed underbelly of corruption.
The revelation that the chosen company was not even registered with the PPRA adds fuel to the fire, intensifying suspicions about the motivations behind its selection.
Shockingly, the motorcycles were procured at P486,723.00 each and the front crush bars at P61,547.46 through the direct appointment to Brilliant Concepts, while the same items were awarded in 2022 to a ‘deserving’ company through a competitive tender: Motor Cycle at P252,115.38 and front crush bar at P1,966.50 each, representing a price hike of 31 times the competitive price for the front crush bar.
Compounding the disarray, further allegations have surfaced, implicating the Ministry of Defence in restricted selective tenders for the construction of 28 police stations. With a colossal budget of P236 million, this initiative has encountered allegations of a skewed procurement process.
Scrutiny centres on the legitimacy of employing restricted tendering methods, which appear to have been granted in defiance of established norms. The resultant restrictive selection process has effectively whittled down the field of participating companies, fomenting doubts about the credibility and experience of the chosen few.
The inclusion of fledgling entities, devoid of substantive industry exposure, fosters speculation of a calculated deception. Strikingly, some of the chosen companies lack PPRA registration in construction codes, a flagrant violation of procedural norms. This has raised concerns as to why these companies were selected ahead of other Batswana companies.
As the layers of these allegations are meticulously unfurled, the trail of suspicion extends to the heart of the Ministry of Defence and Security. Whispers, circulating through the corridors of power, point to an alleged entanglement of the Minister with companies embroiled in these tenders.
This purported nexus between the Minister and these entities casts a shadow of collusion that envelops even the highest echelons of the Ministry. Amid these claims, concerns have escalated about the companies selected for these questionable tenders, with allegations surfacing that they might merely be fronts for some senior ministry officials.
This intricate web of allegations, if substantiated, paints a distressing picture of the extent of corruption and unethical practices that have reportedly permeated the core of governmental operations.