- finds no graft in ballot paper procurement process
- but DC dissatisfied with the outcome
- says it will take further action
Mohloai Mpesi
INDEPENDENT Electoral Commission (IEC) Director of Elections, Advocate (Adv) Mphaiphele Maqutu, has been cleared of corruption charges involving the procurement of election materials for the October 2022 general elections.
The charges had been laid by the main opposition Democratic Congress (DC) shortly after those elections.
The DC had accused Adv Maqutu of corruptly awarding a tender for ballot paper printing to a company that he had “unilaterally selected” for the job disregarding the electoral body’s tender panel.
The DC had accused Adv Maqutu of contravening the Procurement Regulations, 2007, by awarding a company called Uniprint the tender, “usurping” the powers of the evaluation team and tender panel in the process.
Uniprint was competing against five others namely Election Management Consultancy Agency in Africa, Lebone Litho Printers, Renform CC, Elevara Election Service and Shave and Gibson.
The DC had also charged that Adv Maqutu had abused his powers by allegedly overlooking recommendations of the evaluation team and tender panel.
Other opposition political parties both in and outside parliament, including Yearn for Economic Sustainability (YES), had subsequently reported the matter to the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO).
However, DCEO Director-General, Advocate (Adv) Knorx Molelle, says preliminary investigations conducted by the anti-graft body into the corruption allegations against Adv Maqutu, had “not revealed any violations or acts of criminality” in terms of Procurement Regulations, 2007, as had been alleged by the DC.
If anything, Advocate Maqutu’s awarding of the tender to Uniprint to print ballot papers for the October 2022 general elections was done within the context of the law.
In his letter dated 16 August 2024 addressed to local civic group Section 2, titled ‘Urgent Call for Action: Addressing the Delay in Ballot Paper Procurement Investigation for the 2022 General Elections’ and seen by the Lesotho Times, Adv Molelle asserts that the DCEO’s investigations had not unearthed anything resembling the corruption that the DC had claimed.
“We acknowledge receipt of your letter regarding the above matter and wish to state that upon receipt of the report, the Directorate did an inquiry regarding the matter and our preliminary investigations have revealed that there are no violations or any acts of criminality in terms of the Procurement Regulations, 2007, as alleged,” Adv Molelle said.
“The DCEO truly wants to express its sincere appreciation for the support demonstrated by your association. This shows that the DCEO is not working in isolation and therefore would kindly recommend that you continue playing the role of a corruption watchdog. Your usual cooperation and support are highly appreciated.”
Adv Molelle’s letter was a response to Section 2’s 15th August 2024 letter, demanding the outcome of investigations into the DC’s complaint.
Signed by secretary-general, Tjatjapa Sekabi, and addressed to Adv Molelle, Section 2 hard asserted that the prolonged investigations into DC’s complaint about Adv Maqutu “erode public trust and undermine the integrity of democracy”.
Section 2 wanted to know how far the DCEO was with the investigations and that if completed, the public deserved to be informed of the outcome.
Section 2’s letter had been copied to Minister of Law and Justice, Richard Ramoeletsi and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chairperson, ‘Machabana Lemphane-Letsie.
DCEO Spokesperson ‘Matlhokomelo Senoko, confirmed that Adv Molelle had indeed written to Section 2.
Like her boss, Ms Senoko asserted that “the tender awarding process was not flawed”.
“There was nowhere the tendering process was breached. The Procurement Regulations, 2007 state that the director has the power to award the tender. The evaluation team and tender panel will do their job and submit to the director, who has the power to ensure that things are in order,” Ms Senoko said.
“The law directs him to provide reasons where things went wrong. We investigated and established that he had provided reasons why he chose that company over the others. Hence, we did not find anything unlawful with that process.”
Asked why the DCEO informed Section 2 instead of DC, of the outcome of the investigation, Ms Senoko said that they could not have given DC their response on the conclusion “because the DC had been silent throughout”.
“The DC did not make any follow-ups on their complaint. We gave a response to Sections 2 because they made strides to follow up on the political party complaints. We don’t write letters to people when they have reported a matter to us,” Ms Senoko said.
“You report a matter then you consistently follow up on it or write a letter to enquire about the status of your complaint. If there is no case, we write back to you and tell you there is no case. So, these political parties have not come to follow up on their case.
“We responded to Section 2 because they demonstrated concern as far as the investigation was concerned. If investigations are ongoing, we will tell you. If they have been completed, we will also tell you. We will do the same when there is no case. We will tell you.”
She continued: “There are so many cases lodged here in a week, and we can’t provide responses to all of them. So, this issue was completed on time. We couldn’t go to anyone with a response on that case. We were waiting for them (DC) to come.”
Meanwhile, DC Deputy Leader, Motlalentoa Letsosa, has accused the DCEO of bias as it had informed Section 2 of the probe’s result “before telling us as complainants”.
Mr Letsosa said it defied logic why it was Adv Maqutu who had awarded the tender in question, when the tender panel was vested with powers to award it. That raised questions on the integrity of the elections, he said.
He added that the DC would “go back to the drawing board on the issue and try to forge a way forward”.
He also said it was unfair that the DC was being accused of failing to follow up on progress on the investigation, resulting in Section 2 beating them to it.
“They are not being truthful when they say we didn’t make any follow ups. We will go back and discuss this issue as DC. We also want to know if the DCEO says they have already responded to us through the letter to Section 2,” Mr Letsosa said in an interview.
“We thought we were yet to get a response from the DCEO. But if that is their response, we will see how to go about it. We have not discussed this matter because I have just learned that this is our letter.”
While Mr Letsosa did not confirm it, impeccable sources have informed this publication that the DC planned to “take the matter further and approach the courts of law”.
According to Mr Letsosa, Public Procurement Regulations 2007 vested powers to determine a winning bidder in the tender panel.
But the Regulations are also clear in section 39 (1) (b) that “the procurement process shall be regarded invalid and the subsequent contract void or voidable, in the case where the Unit entered into the contract without the approval of the Chief Accounting Officer.”
