LOBAMBA - The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has demanded that the company that allegedly overpriced television sets to Cabinet, must refund government.
This happened yesterday during the first day of this year’s PAC sittings.
The matter stems from a finding that was made by the Auditor General (AG), Timothy Matsebula, in the report for the financial year ended March 31, 2025.
The name of the supplier has been withheld as the contents of the AG’s report remain allegations as it is yet to be adopted.
In his report, Matsebula said he uncovered that the Private and Cabinet Office paid a significantly overpriced amount of E1 267 200 for two Samsung 75 OLED 4K smart screens to the supplier through voucher 090052.
Market
The AG had stated that the market price for the item is currently between E13 999 and E59 999 at local suppliers.
Matsebula stated in his report that Financial and Accounting 0401 states that money must not be spent merely because it has been authorised by Parliament, but that controlling officers should encourage economy by the careful distribution of funds.
He said officers who incur expenditures more than authorised amounts will be held personally responsible and may be liable to surcharge in accordance with Section 20 of the Finance and Audit Law. “The procurement of overpriced items raises concerns about the effectiveness and integrity of the Private and Cabinet Office’s procurement processes, creating a potential risk of corruption. This situation also undermines the reputation and credibility of Private and Cabinet Office, thereby eroding the trust that taxpayers place,” the AG said in his report.
“I advised the controlling officer that the Private and Cabinet Office should conduct an internal investigation on the procurement process to ensure procurement procedures were followed and achieve value for money. The Private and Cabinet Office should also adhere to the financial and accounting instructions and further provide the tender
document,” the AG had said in the report.
Matsebula said in response, the controlling officer stated that the required system’s specification was not on the current suppliers’ pre-qualified list issued by the Ministry of Information Communication and Technology (ICT).
He said the information he received was that the authority for a limited tender was obtained and issued by the Tender Board on March 6, 2024.
Items
Also, the AG had reported that some identical items from the supplier through voucher 090052 were charged different prices, resulting in an overall discrepancy of E1 504 230.26 in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025.
These gadgets, the AG said, were to be installed in Private and Cabinet Office Conference 1 and 2.
He said price discrepancies erode the reputation of the supplier which needs to be checked in future.
Moreover, the AG said there is a risk of misappropriation of funds and authorised expenditure.
During the sitting yesterday, the Controlling Officer at Cabinet, Principal Secretary (PS) Bheki Bhembe provided clarity on the issue by stating that the procurement was not for television sets, but a conferencing system with monitors.
Bhembe said the process went through the necessary procurement process and five suppliers competed until the deserving one was selected.
The PS said what may have led to the red flags might have been that there was no guidance in the presentation of the pricing structure. In particular, the PS said the conferencing system is structured in such a way that it bears costs for hardware, labour, taxes and duties among other things as stipulated in law.
He said unfortunately, the figure did not include all the components, something he said his office has investigated and conducted the necessary reconciliations.
Bhembe said during their investigation, they uncovered that some components of the conferencing system were overpriced and others were underpriced.
Despite the clarity, members of the PAC were not convinced as they bombarded him with questions.
Members
The PAC members asked to know who exactly was responsible for the overpricing and underpricing.
Also, they asked to know what would have happened, had the AG not made the finding. Kubuta MP Masiphula Mamba asked to know why the Office of the PS did not engage the AG the moment it was made aware of the query.
MP Sicelo Ndlangamandla submitted that since it was probably a limited tender, it was crucial to seek approval from the Eswatini Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (ESPPRA).
Also, the MPs raised concern that there was now a change of tune in the whole story as initially, they were of the belief that the supplier admitted the discrepancies and had no problem refunding government if called to do so.
The controlling officer, according to what is contained in the AG’s report, had assured that the excess amount paid would be recovered from the supplier and proof of receipts would be provided accordingly.
The managing director was also said to have included both the original quotation that was intended to be issued and the quotation that was mistakenly submitted, which clearly illustrated the source of the discrepancy while confirming the total contract value remained.
*Full article available on Pressreader*
Members of the Public Accounts Committee before the start of yesterday’s sitting. (Courtesy pics)