Dwelling on the 2019 compliance review, Mr Tambura told the Lead Counsel that procurement units should be under the Department of the accounting officer, saying that wasn’t the case for KMC. He said the procurement office was answerable to the administration department.
He further explained that procurement is a sensitive department and that anyone involved should be independent and ensure is not answerable to different heads of departments.
He said being answerable to other heads of department might lead to a conflict of interest and affect independence in decision-making.
Confirming that he observed the involvement of non-members of the SPU in conducting procurement, he narrated the implication of having the wrong people conduct such transactions.
“Members who are not part of the procurement unit took part in procurements and there were specific references for the environment and sanitation unit,” he said. “This has implications because the understanding is that once you have members outside the procurement unit conducting procurement, it raises eyebrows and the issues of transparency can also be compromised and the whole procurement process.”
He further stated that they don’t expect non-experts in the procurement process, adding that having people outside of the procurement unit doing procurement “raises potential conflicts of interest”. This, he added, could really compromise the whole situation, emphasising that it would lead to violation of the Act and value for money might not be attained.
On transparency and non-compliance issues in procurement, he said transparency is one of the fundament principles of procurement and it is one of the objectives of the procurement law.
“Therefore, depending on the amount involved in the procurement transaction, you are expected to bring that planned procurement to the attention of all potential economic operators either by advertisement or other means, so that people are fully aware that this is a plan for procurement that is about to happen. If these things are not done, it raises some concerns because the law requires that you have to observe transparency,” he stated.
In 2019, the witness said he found out that some of the files at the KMC didn’t have goods receive notes, a notice of award and evaluation reports among others.
He said the goods receive notes are the supporting evidence of receipt of goods, saying if this was absent, it meant there is no evidence that goods were delivered. Per their review, he continued that they couldn’t trace or be presented with anything to suggest that the goods were delivered.
