Zimbabwe Parliament report on ZINARA 2017-2018 audit- Part 5

Mazowe Rural District Council (Mazowe RDC)

270. On 2ndSeptember 2009, Mazowe RDC entered into a contract with MADZ Contractors for the rehabilitation of Rufaro Portlock 24.3 km road and drainage works valued at US$3 114 859.64.
271. Mazowe RDC CEO Mr. L. Mufandaedza made the following representations regarding the procurement process followed in awarding the contract to MADZ Contractors:

“Mr Madzingira approached the CEO of Mazowe RDC… looking for a contract   under special projects which we had no knowledge of.”

272. Mr. Madzingira is reported to have indicated to Mr Mufandaedza that he had been referred by the CEO of ZINARA, Mr. Frank Chitukutuku. When requested by the CEO of Mazowe RDC to put his request in writing, Mazowe RDC received two letters from ZINARA, one dated 5 August 2009 and the second one dated 17 August 2009. Based on the letters MADZ Contractors was awarded the contract to do Rufaro Portlock Road under Special Projects.
273. The contract between Mazowe RDC and MADZ Contractors was subsequently signed on 2 September 2009. The contract was entered into before a council resolution was passed and without going to tender as required by the Procurement Act [Chapter 22: 14].
274. The contract was signed by Mr. L. Mufandaedza the CEO of Mazowe RDC on behalf of Mazowe RDC and Mr. C. Madzingira the Managing Director of MADZ Contractors on behalf of MADZ.
275. According to the contract, 50% was payable at commencement of works. The contract was also silent on when the works were to begin.
276. However, Section 18(b) of the Roads Act (Chapter 13:18) states that: “the board shall … pay to every Road Authority out of the Road Fund … on the basis of completed works certified by an independent qualified engineer or other person with such qualifications as are recognised by the board…”
277. There was no evidence that the works were done satisfactorily. A review of the IPCs revealed that a total of USD 2 481 739 was certified by Mazowe RDC, a figure which is lower than the contract value of USD 3 114 859.64.

Continued next page

(266 VIEWS)