East African Community (EAC) Secretary General (SG) Liberat Mfumukeko, a Burundian National) has responded to a number of allegations implicating him in a corruption scandal saying, he has created enough enemies while doing his job.
He implored the Council of Ministers to support him and his reform agenda, noting that change is painful.
“In the process of implementing change one creates many enemies because of the discomfort it causes to conform to internationally accepted standards in future when they are,” Mfumukeko said in a detailed response to each and every allegation raised by Dr Enos Bukuku, a former EAC deputy secretary general in charge infrastructure and planning.
Bukuku, wrote a damning report on the person of Liberat Mfumukeko alleging that he had mismanaged over $1m from the EAC coffers.
Bukuku, a Tanzanian was backed by two permanent secretaries from Kenya and Uganda.
In the just concluded EAC Summit in Uganda, the Council of Ministers sitting at Imperial Royale Hotel in Kampala dismissed Bukuku’s report.
However, Mfumukeko punched holes in Bukuku’s dossier raising a number of queries and also expounding on their working relations at a time the latter was still at EAC.
“While some Permanent Secretaries have made recommendations on some recommendations on operational matters that we already started implementing, it is very clear that this mission was a faultfinding mission on the part of the Secretary General and that is why most observations in the report by the PSs are inaccurate and not factual,” said Mfumukeko.
He wondered why Bukuku’s report is intentionally silent on any positive reforms implemented by the Secretary General adding that it was structured in a way that faults these initiatives despite their achievements.
“The report has many observations that cannot be substantiated because of the approach and methodology of collecting the information. The report ignores the submissions and clarifications submitted by the Secretary Genend during the investigation There are pertinent questions that beg for answers.”
Queries
Against that backdrop, Mfumukeko raised pertinent questions on Bukuku’s report;
Why did Dr. Bukuku write his complaints as he was leaving EAC and had never raised them in the executive meetings?
All along, Dr. Bukuku had a great working relationship with the Secretary General and had actually played a big role in the induction of the Secretary General. Because of the respect and confidence the Secretary General had in Dr. Bukuku, he appointed him to act as the Deputy Secretary General Finance and Administration a role he played with so much passion, zeal and commitment.
Dr. Bukuku also played a major role in the implementation of the various reforms spearheaded by the Secretary General in 2016, which actually resulted in reduction of costs related to travel expenses in (EAC).
Despite the cordial relationship, Dr. Bukuku and the Secretary General also had some differences as would be expected in any work set up.
In the first instance, the Secretary General disagreed with Dr. Bukuku for the manner in which he handled the life insurance matter, creating a crisis by awarding, revoking, rescinding and revoking awards without consultation causing EAC to go without cover for one month.
Second was the manner in which Dr. Bukuku handled the World Bank project. Dr. Bukuku had attended a meeting in Washington where issues related to staffing were discussed. Upon his return and without briefing the Secretary General, the executives or the Human Resources department, he went ahead to inform three (3) out the fourteen (14) staff that their contracts would not be renewed.
The staff felt aggrieved and wrote to the Secretary General complaining. The Secretary General went ahead to temporarily put on hold this termination awaiting formal communication from the World Bank. Dr. Rukuku was unhappy with the Secretary General’s intervention.
On the third instance, Dr. Bukuku wanted to travel to Washington on an official meeting from April 17- 24 noting that last day of work in EAC was to be 18th April 2017.
The Secretary General declined to approve his request to travel past the retirement date of April 18 which aggrieved him.
It is important to note that Dr Bukuku submitted the document detailing these complaints to the minister on the last day of his services, which tells a lot about his intentions. All the issues he raised had already been discussed and resolved either of the Executive level, by the East African Legislative Assembly and the Audit Commission but according to him the decisions made were not to favour.
The document written by Dr. Bukuku which forms the basis for investigation by the PSs, was written with a lot of bitterness and anger, most accusations lacking basis and substantive evidence, making his motive very clear.
Dr. Bukuku’s report based on its tone, language and manner of accusations contained, is evident that it was written by an aggrieved person. It is a collection of unsubstantiated rumours and imaginations aimed at destroying the Secretary General’s image and portraying him as incapable of leading the Community.
Why are there so many issues around Procurement in EAC?
This is one area in EAC that has been identified as having so many challenges. In each and every audit conducted in EAC there are anomalies identified in a number of procurements. In all the Assessments conducted by the development partners procurement has been singled out as a weak function.
It is against this backdrop that the Secretary General prioritized streamlining of the procurement processes. However, this has received serious internal resistance especially from the Procurement Unit, which has operated without adequate supervision for a number of years. To date, this remains the biggest threat to the fiduciary status of the Community with some development partners such as GIZ, TMEA and EU opting to use their own procurement processes in supporting EAC.
Why was the PSs report distributed to the media, development partners, members of the East African Legislative Assembly and all EAC staff even before being considered by the Council?
The whole report was published in the East African Newspaper on 27th May 2017 and other papers in the partner states. The impact of this action of distributing the report has been erosion of confidence in both EAC leadership and EAC as an organization tarnishing the image of EAC which had passed the EU Fiduciary Assessment a year before. One would wonder what was the intention? Was that part of the instructions to the PSs?