I am still reflecting on the CAG’s report for 2024/25 that was presented to the President slightly over a fortnight ago. The report highlighted persistent systemic weaknesses in public financial management.
This week, I turn to public procurement, given the significant impact it has on the economy. Robert Zoellick, former President of the World Bank, underscored this when he observed: “Public procurement is the government activity most vulnerable to corruption and waste but also the one with the greatest potential to deliver value for money.”
The report highlighted several procurement irregularities, including non-compliance with procurement laws and procedures, contracts awarded without proper legal vetting, advance payments made without guarantees and the fragmentation or splitting of contracts to avoid competitive bidding thresholds.
Public procurement matters because it accounts for approximately 60–70% of government expenditure. Consequently, irregularities in the procurement process can lead to substantial fiscal losses. The report notes, for instance, that contracts worth TZS 103.3 billion were awarded without approved budgets alone. If expenditures arising from ghost purchases, poorly executed works, overpayments and other irregularities were included, the total would be astronomical.
Sadly, these are not isolated cases. Those perpetrating these practices are well aware of this, as they operate within a recurring pattern. Each year, the CAG’s report sparks public outcry, which eventually fades, allowing the same malpractice to resume and be flagged again in subsequent reports. The cycle continues.
Today, I focus on LGAs. To address this problem decisively, the first priority should be to establish clear accountability at the top. City, Municipal and Town Executive Directors must be held personally responsible for procurement outcomes. This can be enforced through annual performance contracts tied to compliance levels, project completion rates and audit outcomes. Without enforcement and consequences, procurement reforms will remain ineffective.
Second, LGAs must simplify and standardise procurement processes. Much of local procurement involves repetitive infrastructure such as classrooms, dispensaries, markets, and roads. The PPRA is well positioned to lead the development of standard procurement packages, including model designs, cost benchmarks and bidding documents. Standardisation will reduce discretion, limit opportunities for manipulation, and improve efficiency across councils.
Third, there must be a transition to full digital procurement and real-time monitoring. The national e-procurement system (NeST), under PPRA oversight, should be mandatory for all LGA procurements, regardless of size, to address fragmentation and contract splitting. Beyond tendering, the PPRA should expand the system to cover contract execution and payment tracking.
In conclusion, reforming procurement in LGAs should be less about designing new policies and more about enforcing discipline, building capacity, and increasing transparency. With the PPRA and TAMISEMI playing a central coordinating and oversight role, these reforms can significantly reduce inefficiencies, improve service delivery and restore public confidence in public procurement.
