Justin Arenstein
Faced with accusations of corruption in the awarding of school textbook supply contracts, the Mpumalanga Tender Board has dismissed the allegations as a racist attack on the country’s new political leaders.
Officials did, however, concede that a criminal investigation was necessary following irregularities during the awarding of four multi-million rand school textbook contracts.
Disgruntled school textbook suppliers have complained that the tender board, in awarding contracts for 1996, had unduly favoured the same four book-supply companies which enjoyed the patronage of former homeland governments.
“While the board believes that there is some basis for concern … the [allegations] suffer from a major weakness. Namely, a grossly exaggerated view of what constitutes corruption or fraud,” explained board chairperson, Lot
“The allegations also contain the tendency to blame the new government for certain actions taken by the previous, older structures.”
This, Ndlovu insisted, is reflected in the assumption that the tender board had been aware that the four companies targeted for investigation had previously “monopolised textbook contracts under homeland governments”.
“We didn’t know that they enjoyed monopolies in the past, but people are judging us for it. These same people are also jumping on the bandwagon and branding mistakes made during the tender process as corruption and fraud,” he
When asked why errors were risked instead of extending the tender deadlines, Ndlovu said that as supply companies closed over December, the department had to award its tender before then or risk interfering with the 1996 school academic year.
He could not say whether the companies would have been prepared to work during December in order to win the multi-million rand contracts.
The only other point on which Ndlovu was prepared to concede possible error was that the board was unaware of the size or value of the school book contracts it had awarded to the four companies.
Even if police and government investigations do reveal that certain companies profited from irregularities within the tender board, the board cannot legally force them to surrender the contracts.