Zimbabwe Parliament report on ZINARA 2017-2018 audit- Part 4

180. Applying the above to the facts before the Committee, the conclusion is that the agreements cannot be defined or categorised as PPPs.
181. The Committee notes, for instance, that the original agreement itself was for a period of one year. No serious capital project can be carried out in such a short period of time.
182. The agreement was effectively for the sale of software and a software platform. That platform was to be developed using data provided for and captured by ZINARA itself. There was not even an obligation to supply any hardware. With such an obligation only being created in the First Addendum signed in October 2012.
183. During oral evidence, the Committee went at great length in asking from Univern figures of what they had put into the project. Mr. Phil Mushosho, the CEO undertook to provide a written schedule, which he never did.
184. The Committee was told however, that Univern had spent a lot in training ZINARA staff and had also built some tollgates.
185. It is possible that Univern actually constructed some tollgates. However, it is hard to imagine a tollgate per se fitting into the category that a Government/public entity would fail to construct on its own.
186. However, the contract goes beyond tolling fees. They include vehicle licensing and fuel levy. The Committee did not hear of any claim of any capital expended in the vehicle licencing system nor the toll system.
187. It is the Committee’s view, therefore, that a desktop software development program such as the one dealt with can under no circumstances be stretched into a capital project befitting the stature of a PPP or a joint venture.

Continued next page

(239 VIEWS)