Front PageNational News

NFRA flouts procedures

Listen to this article

The National Food Reserve Agency (NFRA) risks cancellation or further scrutiny of its newly awarded maize contracts worth K3 billion to 293 companies because it flouted procedures, Nation on Sunday has learned.

According to a source, the contracts were awarded by management for the supply of 50 000 metric tonnes of maize without consulting the NFRA board as per set procedures.

Saukila: Board does not approve contracts
Saukila: Board does not
approve contracts

But the NFRA management argues the board has no say on procurement trends at the agency; as such, no rule was bent.

NFRA chief executive officer Nasunuku Saukira, in response to a questionnaire this week, said the board does not approve suppliers.

He said the agency followed laid down procedures in accordance with the Public Procurement Act.

He said the list of suppliers the NFRA has awarded contracts was approved by the Office of the Director of Public Procurement (ODPP).

“That is enough. Boards have nothing to do with the direct operations of the agency. They are not supposed to see or approve the list of suppliers,” he said.

But the source—who is a member of the newly-appointed NFRA Board—told Nation on Sunday that management flouted its own procurement procedures, where the board has to approve companies to be awarded contracts.

The source said NFRA advertised for the tender to supply maize after Parliament approved K3 billion for the Strategic Grain Reserves (SGR) before the dissolution of the initial board, but the agency went ahead to award tenders without the board’s blessings.

Another new board member, in a separate interview, told Nation on Sunday that NFRA management has no powers to award contracts unilaterally.

Said the source: “Most companies awarded the tenders are politically connected. We have not met as a board. If it were an emergency purchase, they were expected to invite the old board to approve the list of suppliers.

“However, this was a normal purchase and they [management] could have waited,” said the second source.

Former NFRA board member Billy Banda said procedurally, the board endorses suppliers.

“In the absence of a board, the institution is not restrained from performing crucial duties such as maize procurement. Authority and approval is always sought or provided by government through the line ministry or even the President in an emergency.

“The Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture can also raise an alarm warranting government to act or direct NFRA to proceed,” he said.

The source further noted that Malawi is not experiencing food shortages to warrant the urgency of NFRA management to bypass the board.

Chairperson of the newly-appointed NFRA Board, the Reverend Alex Maulana, said he could not comment on the matter because he has not officially received his appointment letter.

On his part, Minister of Agriculture Dr. Allan Chiyembekeza said board members who have problems with the process should ask him.

He said the tenders were approved by the former board, contradicting what the CEO said.

Said Chiyembekeza: “I don’t know how the procedure works, but NFRA could not have waited for the board. New board members do not even have letters of appointment.”

Related Articles

2 Comments

  1. It is interesting for some Board members to claim for powers that they do not have. The authority to award a contract in Public Procurement in Malawi is with the Internal Procurement Committee (IPC) [s.8(3)(c) of the Public Procurement Act of 2003]. A Board member can not be a member of an IPC. Even the CEO of NFRA has no legal mandate of awarding a contract unilaterally despite being the Chairperson of the IPC/appointing authority of who should be in an IPC. If Board Members’ duties and/or functions include awarding of contracts, it is contravening the principal law on public procurement in Malawi. As such, it is irrelevant.
    The role the Board can play is that oversight. That is for the entire operation of the NFRA which includes procurement. In this case, what the Board can do is to request a report on how suppliers were identified. However, this does not mean stopping the whole process of procurement. If the Board find that the process was not as prescribed in the PPA and its subsidiary legislation i.e. Public Procurement Regulations of 2004, it can make an observation to the IPC through the Management.
    It is common for some overzealous members of Boards to influence contract awards because procurement is one of the ways and means worldwide has been used for rewarding and/ or compensating the so called political party well-sharers, business partners, sympathizers etc.

Back to top button
Translate »