News

Three contract awards in the name of Ghana’s Ahanta West District Assembly have been ruled in violation of the West African State’s Public Procurement Act in a report by the Ghanaian Audit Service.

According to the Ghanaian Chronicle based in Accra, the report, prepared at the request of the Auditor-General, makes startling revelations suggesting to gross mismanagement.

The paper forecasts that the district chief executive, Kwesi Biney, is likely to be summoned for questioning before the Ghanaian Parliament’s public account service committee over the findings of the report and its recommendations.

The main charge against the district assembly is that running a contract worth some US$250,000, well above the powers of the district tender board to approve, was a gross violation of the provisions of the Act.

The project started out as construction of a sports field.

A further violation of the procurement rules is alleged due to the verbal engagement of Architectural Spring as a consultant without going through the proper tendering procedures.

There was, according to the Ghanaian Chronicle’s account, no trace of any documentation on file as to how the consultant was appointed.

The report also accuses the district assembly’s management of assisting the consultant to evade payment of around tax in contravention of Ghana’s Value Added Tax Act.

The consultant’s initial estimate for the proposed sports field suggested a fixed price contract valued at US$56 million, low enough to get it past the district tender board. But when it came to billing his fee, the consultant asked for 4.5 per cent on a total contract expenditure of US$250,000.

The explanation tendered to the auditors by the assembly management was that the scale of the work had unexpectedly been enlarged to meet the needs of competitors in the Coupe d’Afrique des Nations to be held in Ghana in 2008.

Thus the modest sports field became a football field with eight running tracks built to international standards. But the audit report maintains that the management was fully aware at the time the contract was let what the final cost would be.   

The additional costs should have gone to the regional tender board for approval. But as the Ghanaian Chronicle’s account put it, the management purposefully adopted a procedure to avoid the involvement of the regional board

The auditors also examined two contracts let about 12 months earlier, as the Ghanaian Chronicle put it, to a close pal of the district chief executive, Papa Cromwell. In this case also the auditors could find no evidence that contract award procedures had been followed. 

The Cromwell contractor was first to complete a partly-built day care centre at a contract sum of 82 million Ghanaian cedi, with 50 million paid up front. 

Quoting the auditor’s report, the newspaper said:  “The quantum of the mobilisation payment amounted to prefinancing the contractor to undertake the project. There was no evidence that the payment of the mobilisation advance was indicated in any contract agreement on the award of the contract as required.”

According to the report, another contract worth around 180 million cedi was awarded to Papa Cromwell for construction of a three-unit classroom block by the same contractor. For this job he received a mobilisation advance of 50 million cedi before refunding the 50 million already advanced towards completion of the day centre on which no work had been done.

The auditor is asking for evidence of the value of work so far done on the second contract and wants evidence to show that the money advanced on the first has been recovered. The same will apply on the second contract if no work has been done.

The District Assembly has now been advised that it should desist from apparent prefinancing of contractors and ensure that all awards are made in accordance with the requirements of the Public Procurement Act. 

In December 2005, Britain’s National Audit Office visited the U.K.

Department for International Development in Ghana to review internal controls and to confirm evidence that grants made had been used for the purpose intended.

After reviewing the accounts of the Ghanaian Government and the audit of those accounts in Ghana, the NAO was satisfied that it could now rely upon the audit completed by the Auditor General.Source: www.iconreview.org