There is a world of evidence that given its growing importance, going forward there is going to be a need for reforms at PPADB (Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board.)
Figures show that at least 70 percent of government budget, more of it for development goes through PPADB.
Given that the economic landscape of Botswana is dominated by government, it goes without saying that PPADB is the single most important axis when it comes to administration of government budget.
This calls for continuous assessment of the ways through which as a country we can optimally manage this budget.
Given the size of budget it adjudicates, it is not by accident that over the years PPADB has had to contend with growing criticisms and ever growing public perceptions of corruption.This is simply because the stakes are much higher for PPADB than they are for many other state agencies.
And with the economy not doing well and many companies hard pressed for cash, more and more of these companies are prepared and much more ready than ever before to blame PPADB when they lose tenders, contracts and/or bids.
By the nature of its mandate, PPADB is a fertile ground for disputes and indeed conflicts.
This is because in administering its mandate, the agency inevitably and invariably produces more losers than winners.
A situation where disputes are as inevitable as is the case with PPADB always puts a strain on officers.
This is not to mention the fact that because of the money involved there is also a kind of temptation that is much more heightened for PPADB officers than is the case with those of other agencies.
But so far given what is at stake, it is fair to say that PPADB has gone a long way in enhancing government and indeed national images.
Relatively speaking there are very few incidents of corruption directly attributable to PPADB.
In fact PPADB has often averted and curtailed corruption by some procuring entities.
Other than perceptions, which will always persist, PPADB has exuded a rare image of transparency, accountability, integrity and transparency.
And this notwithstanding the enormous pressure that its officers, especially the Chairman has had to contend with.
Curiously, this multi-pronged pressure does not only emanate from bidders, it also comes from people who are supposed to be supporting PPADB because they know the rules better.
The media is awash with stories of coercion by ministers and senior civil servants including permanent secretaries.
From the stories we have picked so far, PPADB senior officials are subject of constant attacks as ministers and senior government officials try hard to get their hands on the till.
A way has to be found to protect PPADB officials, especially the Chairman who as it is takes the ultimate responsibility as the Board’s accounting officer. Our suggestion is that a way has to be found to protect the Chairman of PPADB from this ever growing pressure.
One way of doing so would be to adduce operational independence so that his/her office can be better able, through legal immunity to withstand political influence.
Without such immunity, he/she easily becomes a target of victimizations by those more powerful or more senior who feel hard done by his/her professional decisions.
One easy way to protect this office is to introduce a security of tenure, comparable to what has been extended to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It cannot be right that because he/she does not have this security of tenure the Chairman of PPADB fears to act professionally or is even pushed into criminality on account of pressure as she is on a daily basis summoned either to the OP or Ministry of Finance to be read a riot act including being told to her face that she would be sacked because she has refused to do this or that.
