There’s no need to allow foreigners to trample all over our sovereignty
The government has decided that we will now purchase a biometric voter registration system through a government-to-government deal with one of our donor friends.
It has also been decided that the law should be amended to make it possible for the biometric voter registration system to be procured within the time limits for voter registration stipulated in law.
I support the decision to take leadership on this vexed issue.
Surely, we can’t afford to go to another General Election with a manual voter’s roll which – as the Kriegler Commission found out – was wide open to double registration, voter impersonation and multiple voting practices.
But there are risks in the government-to-government route which the Cabinet has decided to take.
In most cases, government-to-government deals tend to be negotiated around what is referred to as tied-procurement. The friendly country will give you the money on condition that the contract to supply services must be given to a company from the country.
There are even cases where the donor country will choose for you a specific company to provide you with the services.
Chinese companies are especially adept at playing the game of tied-procurement. They are ahead of the rest when it comes to “contractor negotiated” loans.
Indeed, a good number of the large infrastructure projects being done by Chinese contractors in sub-Saharan Africa are contracted under this arrangement. You award a contract to a Chinese contractor and he promises to negotiate for you a loan from the Chinese Exim Bank to fund the project.
If we are to go the government-to-government route, we must make sure that we retain the ultimate say on who supplies us with a biometric voter register.
My patriotic instincts make me uncomfortable with the wisdom of ceding too much control to foreigners in implementation of a project with such far-reaching security implications.
Mark you, this project involves creating a database of finger prints and faces of more than 18 million citizens. Which international security organisation will not seek access to such a database? Clearly, there are major sovereignty and national security implications here.
Still, whether we are going the government-to-government route, the process must remain transparent and fair to all players. The service provider must be chosen in a transparent and competitive manner.
This government-to-government idea should not be an excuse for circumventing the basic tenets of transparent bidding. It must not be the avenue to allow some of the politically-connected vendors behind the mess the IEBC found itself in to get back into the game.
I have heard the name of Canada being floated as a possible partner. If the Canadians want to assist us, let them give as ten names of companies – including those from other countries – to choose from.
Giving the job to some Canadian company that participated in the botched process will be the height of impunity. After all, this biometric voter registration is not rocket science.
You have a laptop, a solar system, a digital camera, a finger-printing scanner and a box. Experts will tell you that the most important component in all this, is something called an Automatic Finger Print Identification System.
In the whole world, the number of companies with the capability of manufacturing this engine do not exceed five. So, why don’t we short-circuit noisy middlemen and start negotiating directly with a consortium anchored around a manufacturer of the engine?
Contrary to popular opinion, the IEBC process did not collapse just because the chairman, Mr Isaak Hassan, and chief executive, Mr James Oswago, do not like one another.
The process collapsed mainly because of sub-terranean intrigues and manoeuvres by the vendors and their godfathers. If we don’t insulate this deal from politics, the process risks collapsing again.
If I were the one making decisions here, I would first publish transparent criteria for procuring a vendor. I would then put together an elite group of ICT and procurement experts sourced from the private sector to preside over the negotiations with the preferred vendor. The government’s role should be restricted to diplomacy.
