Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (UCAA) officials have struggled to convince COSASE MPs that a specialised fire-fighting vehicle at Entebbe International Airport was genuinely worth the Shs5.3 billion paid for it.
The controversy came to light when officials appeared before the Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) to explain the procurement of the vehicle.
COSASE Chairman Muwada Nkunyingi questioned why the vehicle cost the taxpayer more than Shs5 billion and whether its special features justified the price.
The MPs also questioned whether government could have obtained a similar fire-fighting vehicle at a much lower price from another supplier or manufacturer.
Their concerns were heightened by findings contained in the Auditor General’s report for the 2014/15 financial year, which raised questions about the procurement of the vehicle and suggested possible irregularities in the process.
Nkunyingi reportedly went as far as checking prices of similar airport fire-fighting vehicles on the online market to establish whether the Shs5.3 billion price tag reflected the actual market value.
Nkunyingi said the committee had previously ordered the officials to return with the vehicle’s logbook showing ownership. But when they appeared before the committee, they did not have the required paperwork.
Nkunyingi said MPs became so dissatisfied that they halted the session and demanded the vehicle’s details. After being pushed for answers, the officials reportedly produced a document purporting to be a card showing that the vehicle had been bought in Turkey.
But instead of accepting the document at face value, the committee handed it over to the Parliamentary Police for verification.
The chairman challenged CAA officials to explain the difference between the Entebbe vehicle and other airport fire-fighting vehicles on the market.
The officials, however, maintained that the vehicle is highly specialised and its capabilities justify the cost.
CAA Director General Fred Bamwesigye told the committee that the vehicle is unusual and is capable of performing advanced fire-fighting operations in the event of an airport emergency.
He defended the purchase, saying its specialised capabilities make it different from ordinary fire-fighting vehicles.
Acting Deputy Director of Airports Samuel Wonekha went further, telling the MPs that the Shs5.3 billion price was actually low compared to what neighbouring countries paid for similar vehicles. He said the car was acquired through a legit bidding process.
He argued that comparable airport fire-fighting vehicles in the region had been purchased at significantly higher prices. He further noted that the components in the ride can forcefully open an aircraft in time of a fire incident , foam and water to put out the fire. He clarified that its not your daily, ordinary truck that puts out ordinary fires and that its driver is not a regular fire truck driver.
However, the explanation did little to settle the MPs’ concerns, with the committee continuing to question the actual market value of the vehicle.
COSASE has now ordered the Parliamentary Police to investigate the matter. According to Nkunyingi , the police investigation will examine the market price of the fire-fighting vehicle and establish details surrounding its ownership.
The committee wants to establish whether the Shs5.3 billion paid for the vehicle represented its genuine market value and whether there were any irregularities in its procurement.
Nkunyingi said the police will now have to establish whether the vehicle actually belongs to the Civil Aviation Authority and whether it is properly registered in the authority’s name. They will also establish what exactly the vehicle does, its specifications and other details surrounding its acquisition.
The ownership question is only one of the issues troubling the MPs. The committee also wanted to know exactly how much was paid for the vehicle.
Nkunyingi said officials initially failed to give a clear answer on the price. It was only after deep and sustained questioning that the committee established that the vehicle cost more than Shs5 billion.
That answer immediately raised another question: Why would government approve a vehicle worth more than Shs5 billion?
Nkunyingi said the committee wants to establish whether the vehicle genuinely cost that much and whether its special features justified the massive expenditure. He also questioned whether similar vehicles could have been obtained at a cheaper price.
