Whoever embezzled LC bicycle money should pay

By Moses Balyeku

LAST month, Parliament received a report of the Committee on Public Service and Local Government in regard to the investigation into failure to procure and deliver bicycles for villages and parish councils by the ministry of Local Government.

During the investigations on June 20 when the line minister Adolf appeared before the committee he informed its members that although the ministry had paid $ 1,719,454.58 representing 40% of the purchase price for the 70,000 bicycles up to then no bicycles had been supplied yet the supplier had a contractual obligation to meet the schedule on March 25.

It is a pity that some technocrats in the Ministry of Local Government who were charged with this responsibility behaved the way they did. 

Ironically, for these technocrats, the Government periodically allocates them four wheel drive cars, their fuel cards are credited promptly by the ministry’s accountant together with corresponding hefty travel allowances. One would expect that such a person who is treated that way would have sympathy to ensure that his colleague at the LC level gets a modest means of transport which is a bicycle. But was not the case.

Shockingly, in face of such scandals, the authorities that are charged with reprimanding or prosecution of the culprits become indecisive yet the Constitution is very clear on how to proceed.

Article 164 (2) states that “ Any person holding a political or public office, who directs or concurs in the use of public funds contrary to existing instructions shall be accountable for any loss arising from that use and shall be required to make good the loss even if he or she has ceased to hold that office”.

That would be the dictum for relevant organs like Criminal Investigations Department, Inspector General of Government, Director of Public Prosecutions and the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority. Much as Parliament is also charged with the oversight role but if the above organs would act first, then Parliament would have a lot of concentration in making laws.

With increasing cases of corruption in the Government, the above relevant organs should make a radical change from reactive to proactive line. The best way for them to achieve this is by encouraging whistle blowing strategy. However, this will not give results if the principle of confidentiality is not adhered to.

There are cases where the confidentiality of the whistle blower is violated and he or she ends up being hunted by the corrupt he reported.

Secondly, there are higher chances that such a scandal would have been avoided if the ministry opted to award the tender to a local based company. Otherwise what is the essence of awarding such a lucrative tender to an elusive foreign company yet we have our own which can deliver.

Dealing with a local company would be more prudent considering that before the award; it is cheaper and easier to make pre investigations on the company profile, its ability to deliver and character of its directors. Procuring bicycles is not such a technical issue which would demand sourcing a foreign company which in fact makes it more expensive.

Awarding non complex tenders to foreign companies should always cause suspicion whenever a government department opts for so during procurements. Otherwise the bicycle scandal was avoidable if vigilance was mounted by the relevant organs.

Writer is the Jinja West MP