[ad_1]
68
- No corruption was found in the ballot procurement process
- But DC was not satisfied with the results
- Indicates further action will be taken
mollempesi
The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) Electoral Director, Advocate (Adv) Mphaiphele Maqutu, has been acquitted of charges relating to the procurement of election materials for the October 2022 general elections.
The allegations were made by the main opposition Democratic Congress (DC) soon after these elections.
The district council accused Adv Maqutu of corruptly awarding the ballot paper printing tender to a company he “unilaterally selected” in defiance of the electoral body’s tender panel.
The DC accused Adv Maqutu of violating the Procurement Regulations 2007 by awarding the tender to a company called Uniprint and in the process “usurping” the powers of the evaluation panel and tender panel.
Uniprint’s competitors include five other companies, namely African Election Management Consultants, Lebone Litho Printers, Renform CC, Elevara Election Service and Shave and Gibson.
The Auditor General also accused Maqutu of abusing his power by ignoring the recommendations of the evaluation panel and the tender panel.
Subsequently, other opposition parties inside and outside the parliament, including the Yes Party, reported the matter to the Directorate General of Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEO).
However, DCEO Director General, Adv lawyer Knorx Molelle said the initial investigation conducted by the anti-graft body into corruption allegations against Adv Maqutu “did not reveal any illegal or criminal conduct in violation of the Procurement Regulations 2007”, as alleged by the DC.
In any case, the award of the tender for printing ballot papers for the October 2022 general elections to Uniprint by Lawyer Makutu was done within the legal framework.
In his letter to the local citizens’ group Part 2 dated August 16, 2024, titled “Urgent Call to Action: Address Delays in 2022 Election Ballot Procurement Investigationandlesotho timesAdv Molelle insisted that the DCEO’s investigation did not uncover any corruption similar to what the DC had alleged.
“We acknowledge receipt of your letter regarding the above matter and wish to state that upon receipt of the report, the Directorate has investigated the matter and our preliminary investigations revealed that there has not been any illegality or criminal conduct under the Procurement Regulations 2007 as alleged,” Adv Molelle said.
“DCEO sincerely appreciates the support of your association. This shows that DCEO is not fighting alone, so we sincerely recommend that you continue to play the role of anti-corruption watchdog. Thank you very much for your continued cooperation and support.”
Adv Molelle’s letter is a 15dayThe August 2024 letter requested the findings of the DC complaint.
Article 2, signed by Secretary General Tjatjapa Sekabi and addressed to Adv Molelle, clearly states that the prolonged investigation into the DC’s complaint against Adv Maqutu “erodes public trust and undermines the integrity of democracy”.
Part 2 wants to know how the DCEO investigation is going, and if it is completed, the public has a right to know the resultse.
Part 2 of the letter was copied to Attorney General Richard Ramoeletsi and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairperson Machabana Lemphane-Letsie.
DCEO spokesperson ‘Mathlokomelo Senoko confirmed that Adv Mollelle had indeed written to the 2nd Department.
Like her boss, Ms Senoko insisted there were “no flaws in the tender award process”.
“The tendering process has never been violated. The Procurement Regulations 2007 provide that the director has the power to award the tender. The evaluation panel and tender panel will perform their duties and be subject to the director, who has the power to ensure that everything is in order,” Ms Senoko said.
“The law requires him to explain why things went wrong. After our investigation, we found that he had explained why he chose this company over other companies. Therefore, we believe that there was nothing illegal in this process.”
When asked why the DCEO informed Section 2 of the findings instead of the DC, Ms Senoko said it was not possible for them to respond to the DC on the conclusions “because the DC has remained silent”.
“The district council did not follow up on their complaints. We responded to Part 2 because they have made great strides in following up on complaints from political parties. We do not write to people when they report something to us,” Ms Senoko said.
“You report something and then you follow up or write to ask about the status of the complaint. If there is no case, we write back to tell you there is no case. So, these parties are not following up their cases.
“We responded to Part 2 because they showed interest in the investigation. If the investigation is ongoing, we will tell you. If the investigation is complete, we will also tell you. We will also do that if there is no case. We will tell you.”
She continued, “We get so many cases in a week that we cannot respond to all of them. So, this matter is closed on time. We cannot provide a response to anyone in this case. We are waiting for them (DC) to come.”
Meanwhile, DC deputy leader Motlalentoa Letsosa accused the DCEO of bias because it informed Part 2 of its findings before “informing us, the complainants.”
Mr Lesosa said it was illogical why Adv Maqutu awarded the tender when the tender committee was given the power to award the tender. He said this raised questions about the fairness of the election.
He added that DC will “reconsider this and try to find a way forward”.
He also said it was unfair to blame the DC for failing to follow up on the progress of the investigation, which allowed Section 2 to take a head start.
“They are lying when they say we have not taken any follow-up action. We will go back and discuss this as DC. We also want to know if the DCEO has indicated that they have responded to us through the letter to Section 2,” Mr Letsosa said in an interview.
“We thought we hadn’t heard back from the DCEO yet. But if this is their response, we’ll see how to deal with it. We haven’t discussed it because I just learned that this is our letter.”
While Mr Letsosa did not confirm this, reliable sources told this publication that DC plans to “take the matter further and go to court”.
oneAccording to Mr. Lesosa,The Public Procurement Regulations 2007 give the Tender Panel the power to determine the successful tenderer.
However, Article 39(1)(b) of the Regulations also clearly states that“The procurement process shall be deemed void and any subsequent contracts void or revocable,If an employer signs a contract without approval,carbonRaisedoneAccountingohofficials. “
[ad_2]
Source link
