How commission agents have used the media and turned the procurement process in Uganda into a circus
It is now
highly probable that the US$ 2 billion tendering process for the 600MW
hydro electricity dam at Karuma will be declared a `mis-procurement’. If
this happens, I can bet that it will take the next seven years of
wrangling before another contractor is named to build Karuma.
To a
person visiting Uganda for the first time and following these media
reports, our country seems to have a vigilant government that is out
there to guard the public good and ensure that our citizens get a good
deal. For a journalist like me who has covered public tenders for over
15 years, these stories are most likely make-believe tales that
demonstrate attempts to corrupt the tendering process. The first cause
of suspicion is the fact that newspapers that shout loudest about how
Museveni and the police aid and abate corruption in our country are the
ones – clearly inadvertently – reporting his heroic efforts and those of
the police to strangle this monster of corruption in the dam deal.
Media
organisations in Uganda lack institutional memory. Our newspaper
industry does not retain staff for many years. So the reporters and
editors who reported on the last procurement deal have moved on.
Consequently, our journalists and editors have not yet developed an
“eagle eye’s” view of our political system. So they tend to cover every
procurement deal as an event rather than as part of a wider pattern.
Often, the
companies that bid for big tenders in Uganda are international. They
come believing, rightly or wrongly, that to get a deal, you need
political influence. But international firms lack social ties with our
political and bureaucratic class to navigate the webs of wheeler-dealing
that gets one a contract. So they hire local handlers to do the work
for them. These local intermediaries earn a commission upon the
international firm getting a contract. And they are people who have (or
are perceived to have) close connections with the powers that be.
Because of
the interconnectedness of the Ugandan political system, anyone of the
commission agents knows who his opposite numbers are. Perhaps they get
good information on the bribing that is taking place. But some of the
time, actually most of the time, it is gossip, slander, idle talk and
rumours. If one company wins the tender, the commission agent of the
rival company, whose pay depends on his company getting the deal, will
leverage the institutions of accountability like the IGG, PPDA, media,
Parliament, State House or intelligence services to claim that the rival
bribed their way to success. He will become the anonymous whistle
blower or even convince the company he is representing to lodge an
official complaint.
Initially
the institutions that ensure accountability in our country may intervene
with the genuine motive of resolving the scandal. The problem, however,
is that immediately they do so, the commission agents of the different
competing firms join the fray to influence the outcome. Each now will
seek to influence MPs, PPDA, the IGG investigators or the media to get
to a favourable rating or coverage. In pursuit of this objective they
will use facts, lies, bribes and all sorts of tricks to get their way.
Their
primary objective will be to discredit the initial award in order to
cause a mis-procurement. For then, their company gets another chance at
the deal, and them, another probability at a commission. The real
corruption begins when they are trying to torpedo an award. For then
they can ask the company they are representing for money to buy off
investigators from the office of the IGG, PPDA, police and intelligence
officers, MPs and the media. Often, they may not even pay any bribes –
for example to journalists – since we are always hungry for the next
scandal.
It is in
this context that if you understand the political economy of procurement
in Uganda, you realise that the very efforts that are seemingly aimed
at fighting graft are the very instruments thieves and crooks use to
promote the cause of corruption. There are always hidden motives beneath
the manifest ones that shape the struggle to cause a mis-procurement.
The bidding firms are promised by their commission agents a favourable
outcome if the initial allocation is cancelled. So they play along.
I was a
young journalist when four international companies competed to win a
tender to offer pre-shipment inspection services. The battle between
Cotecna (Switzerland), Bivac (France), ITS (Britain) and SGS (France)
was protracted, bloody and expensive. It paralysed the entire
government, compromised the institutional integrity of the state, caused
a burglary in the ministry of Finance and ended in no deal after four
years of manoeuvres and counter manoeuvres. I covered the attempt to
award a tender to issue a National ID and the struggle between Contec
Global (from Britain), Information Technologies (from South Africa) and
Super Com (from Israel) was fought in parliament, State House and the
media and ended with no national ID.
The list
of these contests is endless. The lesson, however, is that Ugandan
editors and reporters have not learnt the lesson from these contests
i.e. that we are often used – perhaps inadvertently – to promote causes
we know little about. In the process, we help, not only in undermining
the ability of the state to perform its functions, but actually to
accentuate corruption.
If the
government declares Karuma a mis-procurement, it will be another seven
years before another contractor is given a contract. During this time,
the costs of the dam as a result of corruption and inflation will
escalate. A seeming effort to fight corruption is actually the fuel that
propels this monster in our country.
No comments:
Post a Comment