The newly-appointed board of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority (PPDA) has assumed office facing an immediate governance puzzle: the entity’s director general is suspended, yet no public authority has claimed responsibility for the decision, or explained the allegations behind it.
Eddington Chilapondwa was suspended last month, before the current board underwent parliamentary interviews and assumed office, board chairperson Kalekeni Kaphale, to whom Chief Secretary to Government Justin Saidi referred Weekend Nation to, confirmed the development yesterday.
“Now that the board is in office, it will deal with the matter going forward,” said Kaphale, declining to disclose any alleged wrongdoing on the basis that the board is yet to hold its first meeting.
“There was no board until last week when we were confirmed in our posts. Orientation is tomorrow [today], and the first meeting will be organised afterwards,” he said.
In a brief WhatsApp response, Chilapondwa declined to comment: “I have gone through your questions. Surely, they are pertinent, critical and interrogative; nevertheless, for now I would rather remain silent until an appropriate time when I will respond.”
He also did not say whether he continues to receive salary and benefits during the suspension.
Chairperson of the now-dissolved board, Jacob Nyirongo, said Chilapondwa was still in office when his board’s tenure ended.
until last week. I Nation
“We left him still in office. What happened after the board was dissolved, I may not know,” he said.
A procurement expert who asked for anonymity cited Section 17(3) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, which empowers the authority to suspend the director general for up to 60 days in the public interest pending investigations.
“Who suspended him? This is about the authority of the board reverting to the appointing authority,” said the expert.
He said the law also requires that the office-holder be heard before any permanent removal.
The lack of clarity has triggered governance concerns among procurement experts, who say the key issue is the legality of the suspension.
Centre for Social Accountability and Transparency executive director Willy Kambwandira warned that the absence of clear information raises questions about whether proper procedures were followed.
He said: “If the suspension occurred without clear engagement of the incoming board, it raises questions about procedural propriety and respect for statutory governance structures.
“Any action outside the framework of the appointing authority risks being ultra vires and legally contestable. A regulator of public procurement must be seen to operate independently, predictably and transparently.”
Kambwandira added that abrupt or opaque decisions risk being interpreted as executive overreach and could cast doubt on the regulator’s independence.
Governance expert Benedicto Kondowe, however, noted that suspensions are legitimate oversight tools intended to protect institutional integrity during reviews.
“If handled properly, this development can demonstrate that over s ight mechanisms are active and that no office is beyond accountability,” he said, while cautioning that limited communication fuels speculation.
Parliament’s Public Appointments Committee chairperson Felix Njawala said his committee’s mandate covers the board, not the director general, and that he would seek guidance from the Clerk of Parliament on the matter.
PPDA acting director general Timothy Kalembo acknowledged receiving a questionnaire but had not responded by press time, saying he was in a meeting.
