Tanzania: Fraud office is investigating £28m deal agreed by Blair
mtoahoja
Fraud office is investigating £28m deal agreed by Blair
By Sam Coates
Members of the Cabinet were overruled by the Prime Minister when they
queried a BAE Systems contract in Tanzania, writes our correspondent
Protesters dressed as Tony Blair and Sir Richard Evans suggest close
links between the two in 2004 (Nick Ray/The Times)
A CONTROVERSIAL deal personally approved by Tony Blair to send a
multimillion-pound air traffic control system to Africa is being
investigated for corruption, The Times can reveal.
The Serious Fraud Office and Ministry of Defence police are looking
into allegations that BAE Systems paid backhanders to the Tanzanian
Government for a £28 million military air traffic control system.
The Prime Minister overruled Gordon Brown and other Cabinet ministers
to approve the deal, despite warnings from the World Bank that it could
have bought a non-military system for a tenth of the price.
Investigators, who have been studying the deal for more than six
months, made a fact-finding visit to the House of Commons last
Wednesday. They were handed a dossier of evidence compiled by Norman
Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP who has played a key role questioning the
deal.
The news that a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation is under way
risks reopening one of the most divisive rows of the last Parliament,
which pitted the Chancellor and Clare Short, the former International
Development Secretary, against Jack Straw, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff
Hoon, who were in favour of the deal.
*
Click here to find out more!
It also risks undermining the Prime Minister's commitment to poverty
reduction in Africa. Today David Miliband, the Environment Secretary,
is in Nairobi for talks with representatives of 100 governments on
finding a successor to the Kyoto Agreement. They are expected to focus
on how Third World countries can afford to cut carbon emissions.
The SFO is already investigating BAE Systems in connection with claims
of a £60 million "slush fund" used by BAE to pay off Saudi Arabian
dignitaries.
Investigators are understood to have obtained documents that suggest
that there might have been criminal activity connected with the
Tanzania deal. The SFO is believed to have questioned a number of
employees at BAE, but none of those interviewed has been charged.
On the basis of the evidence obtained so far, investigators want to
expand the inquiry and are applying to the Treasury for additional
funding to separate this investigation from the existing Saudi Arabia
one. It is understood that these submissions are routine and ministers
are not allowed to form a judgment of the validity of the case.
The decision by the Prime Minister to grant an export licence for the
BAE system to Tanzania caused a huge row when it was made public in
2001 and the World Bank questioned why Tanzania, which has only eight
military aircraft, needed a military system. The deal was financed by a
£40 million loan from Barclays Bank, which caused further anger
because the debt was paid from aid given to Tanzania by Britain to
assist sustainable development, including primary education.
A spokesman for the World Bank said that it was "a mistake and a
disappointment" and experts at the International Civil Aviation
Organisation said that it was primarily a military design, which was
not adequate for civilian air traffic control use.
The Department of Trade claimed that the new system could be "cost
neutral" because Tanzania could make millions of pounds from charging
airlines for overflying and it could improve safety and encourage
tourism. Ministers also argued that the 280 British jobs at stake on
the Isle of Wight would be lost if the deal did not go through.
Mr Lamb said that there was no justification for Mr Blair approving the
sale of the system. "It is extraordinary that this should get the
Prime Minister's support given his stated commitment to Africa and it
is a relief that we may now get to the truth of how this export ever
took place." He added that the Treasury must now give the
investigation the support that the Serious Fraud Office was demanding.
Ms Short confirmed that the police had visited her about six months ago
and told her that they had received documents suggesting corruption
concerning this contract.
"Although I never knew any details of corruption, it was always clear
that that contract could not have been honestly obtained and I am
delighted that the truth is coming to light," she said.
An SFO spokesman said: "There have been reports about various aspects
of BAE Systems' contracts overseas and I think that in the generic
sense we are looking at suspected corrupt acts. Our investigations into
BAE and suspected corruption are sensitive and, for operational
reasons, we cannot assist in providing confidential information."
A spokeswoman for BAE Systems said: "The SFO inquiry is an ongoing
process with which BAE Systems continues to co-operate fully. As this
matter is an ongoing investigation we can make no further comment at
this stage. However, we fully believe that BAE Systems has done nothing
wrong."
HOW THE DEAL WAS STRUCK
1990 Failure of air traffic control radars covering Dar es Salaam, and
Kilimanjaro
1992 Tanzanian Government seeks tenders on a new joint
military/civilian air traffic control system
NOVEMBER 1993 Bid from Siemens Plessey (now BAE Systems) accepted
JULY 1997 BAE submits a request to the MoD for preliminary advice on
gaining an export licence
AUGUST 1997 Clearance given
SEPTEMBER 1997 Tanzanian officials first meet Barclays
1999 Barclays supplies a "soft" loan to Tanzania
OCTOBER 2000 Barclays granted a banking licence to open branches in
Tanzania
MID 2001 The World Bank, left, asks the International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO) to investigate the project
SEPTEMBER 2001 The World Bank persuades Tanzania to suspend payments
from Barclays to BAE pending the outcome of the investigation
OCTOBER 2001 An ICAO interim report finds that the BAE system is "not
adequate and is too expensive" for civil purposes
NOVEMBER 2001 Tanzania is judged so poor that it qualifies for World
Bank debt relief
DECEMBER 2001 Tony Blair and Patricia Hewitt overrule Gordon Brown and
Clare Short to grant BAE a government export licence
JANUARY 2002 Tanzania defends the deal
SPRING 2002 The system is shipped to Tanzania
JUNE 2002 The final ICAO report, understood to confirm that the BAE
system is too expensive for civilian purposes, is handed to the
Tanzanian Government
DECEMBER 2005 President Mkapa is succeeded by his Foreign Minister,
Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, after elections
EARLY 2006 Investigators start their inquiry
Mariam
What do you think about this whole thing? It's nice to see there was a
commitment to investigation and that it never stopped.
Mtoahoja
Aik
still in charge.
Richard
Aik wrote:
> Nice story...it looks like whoever authorized this deal is probably
> still in charge.
This type of deal would not go thru without authorization of the
president at the time...who is not official in charge....
Mtoahoja
will have more meaningful results if it evolves around the National
Security - Economic Development Dichotomy. National Security is a very
vital ingredient for economic development, thus justification for
Tanzania to posses a radar system that can help protect both our air
space and borders. Tanzania's airspace and borders had been violated a
numerous times in the past and this violation brought a huge cost to
Tanzania and its people. One of the reasons why it happened was bacause
of the lack of a modern radar system to serve for Security Purposes.
British politicians are interested with this issue not because the
acquisition of the system by Tanzania was a waste. Instead, British
politicians, especially 'labour within labour' are constantly
exploiting innovative ways to end Blair's tenure in office sooner than
later for their own political gain.
The WorldBank should not interfere with affairs that intends to bring
progress in poor countries such as Tanzania. The intervention by the
World Bank is because the institution had been sidelined and therefore
did not benefit from the project. How many white elephant projects did
the WorldBank pioneer in Africa, projects that did cost the African
continent millions of dollars? Why did the World Bank reject the
TAZARA project in the mid 1960s and what has been the outcome of the
chinesse intervention ever since? Why is the promise that the Songo
Songo Gas Project in Tanzania will end the power night-mare that have
tortured Tanzanians for decades still not delivered? These are among
many questions and concerns that the World Bank seems to think that the
poor have no track record of its record in Tanzania. Bogus and
shorthanded claims by the World Bank such as those about the Radar
system only do further harm to the institution in terms of its
credibility in the context of poverty and neo colonialism.
According to original article, it can be infered that some individuals
did benefit from the project. However, it should be noted that such
circumstances are unavoidable in any context, whether in the poor or
rich world. The most important thing to bear in mind, however, is that
the decision by the Tanzanian government to acquire the radar system
was based on a sound judgement, again based on the National Security -
Economic Development Dichotomy contetion above. Even the break down of
the timeline of events prior to the actual acquisition of the radar
system reveals no foul play.
The fact that Tanzania is a poor does not mean that the country does
not deserve to own a radar system with functionalities such as the
protection of the national air space and national borders of the land
and seas. As a matter of fact, it is a common believe among
practitioners in the development community, including the World Bank
itself, that a lack of security is one of the factors that further push
the poor into chronic poverty.
Richard
How exactly does this solution secure borders? How has the breach of
these sea and land borders you are mentioning affect Tanzania? How will
the radar solve this issue? Breakdown the technicalities for
us..........
What is the cost-benefit analysis of owning it, at its current inflated
price tag, while lower cost options were available?
How is it unavoidable for Tanzania leaders to receive corrupt
kickbacks? You are leaving lots of questions...with nothing answered on
original issue.
"Confessions of a political Hit man" take advantage of self-serving
leaders.....just like it was during colonial times....we are seeing a
replay of the chiefs obtaining a piece of cloth to give up their people
and resources. Shameful, no matter how you want to look at it.
Mtoahoja
wrong course. Individuals tend to pay too much attention on
quantitative issues, completely ignoring the value of qualitative
approach to decision making and development intervention. On this
particular issue, the problem is definately not on whether Tanzania
needed a new and efficient radar system. If there is any problem, then
its on procurement, not the actual acquisition and the debate on the
procurement process can always be as wide open anyone wishes.
On corruption, kickbacks, self serving leaders etc, it is not about how
avoidable/unavoidable...Instead, it is about individuals coming up with
convincing evidence that corruption took place. We have an anti
corruption unit which is very effective at tackling such issues and
many individuals have been punished, provided there was evidence. On my
earlier post, i postulated that and i repeat it again here - in any
country where there is a procurement process on such public projects,
some individuals may benefit and in many cases it is unavoidable. Now
whether that is branded as corruption, commission or whatever term,
that is a different subject. It should also be noted that receiving a
commission on such projects is not always a crime.
You have brought an interesting claim that the cost for the radar was
inflated for personal gains. As usual, this is useless unless it comes
with evidence. On your point about an alternative and cheaper radar
system, it is my practice to ignore options that are argued to be
viable for my country just because it is the donor(s) who has stated
so. What was the other option(s) and on whose terms, us as Tanzanians
or them as the World Bank? We are smarter than that and Richard my
brother, please dont fall for such void claims. Be that as it may,
paying more attention on such issues while paying scant attention on
digesting the benefits that are being delivered by the new radar system
in Tanzania is a lack of appreciation of progress, development and
modernisation efforts by the Tanzanian government from a Tanzanian.
However, all the doubts and the lack of appreciation does not come as a
surprise. Sometimes, Africans, especially those that have managed to
get exposure by dwelling on the lands of the former
colonialists/imperialists, colonialists/imperialists who once made us
believe that there wont be any meaningful progress in Africa unless
they come on board, tend to have a stigma in our heads that african
governments/states/leaders are full of dirty hands. Further, the stigma
continues, there is always a foul play in any development or policy
intervention in the continent.
Colonialists succesfully and intentionally left Africans with a culture
and belief that no ruling class in post-colonial africa will ever be
trustworthy in the eyes of the ruled class. Further, no african
government will achieve the capacity to steer its governance and
development management activities in a sustainable way unless all
actions and interventions are endorsed by the donors, who themselves
are the former colonial powers and the creators of the current unjust
global economic and political order that will continue to haunt Africa
for the unforeseable future.
We as African people need to take a balanced act. We need to stop
entertaining the culture and mentality of negative views about our
leaders without confirming and disconfirming issues. Analysis from
western media on Africa has always been one sided and more harmful than
good.
On the original article, it is the imperial powers pointing fingers at
each other because each one of them feels that their interests were not
taken into account, thus cheated. Shamefully however, we Africans are
not wise enough to realise that thats not our fight. While they fight,
we should focus on enjoying the benefit that the product (radar system)
is offering at the moment. Suppose i ask these questions: If the
original article came from the third world media, would it be treated
the same way? Whoever has brought this article into the main stream
media has the same old imperialists intentions of dividing and rulling
Africans. Whoever they are, they know that such a content will provoke
issues, open old wounds and bring a political turm oil in Tanzania. And
they are itching to take advantage of that once it happens. Tanzanians,
however, are smarter than that.
Lastly, it will be more excited if politicians in the west begin to
circulate a bill condeming the atrocities they conducted in Africa in
the past 200 years or so in the form of slavery and colonialism in
Africa. That is when individuals like me will begin to take western
politicians talking about African development more seriously. Until
then, it would interesting to see individuals like richard fighting the
wrong enemy. Problems among Arican leaders is only one side of the coin
and that side is the tail.
Daniel Makundi
investigations began soon after JK took over from BWM. IMHO it's not a
mere coincidence
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eng Daniel Makundi
Box 23075 Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aik
of the
president at the time...who is not official in charge...."
That is why I said "it looks like whoever authorized this deal is
probably still in charge". Mwinyi/Mkapa were in power but somehow
Nyerere was still in control. Thus, there must a powerful group of
people that was/is still in control (from the initial process to the
transaction time..and probably until now)
Sameway over here (Bush Sr and Bush Jr,) either they both got exact
same dumb brain or one is still in control (of the other).
ajm...@gmail.com
defending your position on this issue; man we can make a good lawyer
out of you (are your costs affordable?). Despite of all that, there
are a few points that we cannot negate. First of all put aside the
corruption or financial kickbacks and just examine the intended purpose
and results of this system. I am going to quote you from your own
statement "Tanzania's airspace and borders had been violated a numerous
times in the past and this violation brought a huge cost to Tanzania
our airspace violated in terms of huge costs which are justifiable to
£28 million price tag?????
Secondly, even if we assumed the above statement is valid, the BAE
system was/is known to be incapable of monitoring civilian aircraft as
its primarily designed for military purpose.......so again this would
have not addressed the above problem.
Again quoting back to the claims made by The Department of Trade "
............... Tanzania could make millions of pounds from charging
airlines for overflying and it could improve safety and encourage
tourism."
was deployed? Believe me if there were any positive results out of it,
you would have seen it on the headlines of every Tanzania and UK media.
Well Mtoahoja, I might agree with you on other points that you made
about the world bank views on African countries, but looking on this
deal by itself their critique was right on the money!
Richard
I am still waiting on a response to::
Mariam
posted by others which itch me as well, I must say I don't think this
is a war between two bulls and we should sit aside and watch, and if it
is, remember we are the battle ground so we face the danger of catching
up on fire, (I am trying to imply the Swahili adage "mafahali wawili
wakipigana ziunguazo ni nyasi":-), I hope it worked!)...Anyhow, perhaps
this time one of the "usual suspect" is doing the right thing (World
Bank - in conjunction with International Civil Aviation Organisation
(ICAO) which investigates the project). I derived this conclusion from
few admissions from the article which raise red flags...and we are told
some of the info couldn't be released b'se of confidentiality issues,
makes you wonder what more is there:
=> World Bank questioned why Tanzania, which has only eight military
aircraft, needed a military system. ~(answers from questions paused
about the tangible benefits obtained may suffice)
=>experts at the International Civil Aviation Organisation said that it
was primarily a military design, which was not adequate for civilian
air traffic control use.
=>The deal was financed by a £40 million loan from Barclays Bank,
which caused further anger because the debt was paid from aid given to
Tanzania by Britain to assist sustainable development, including
primary education.
So, as Andrew said "Believe me if there were any positive results out
of it, you would have seen it on the headlines of every Tanzania and UK
media", otherwise, I would only say these factors below were the
benefits of the project:
=>Ministers also argued that the 280 British jobs at stake on the Isle
of Wight would be lost if the deal did not go through.
=>1999 Barclays supplies a "soft" loan to Tanzania
=>OCTOBER 2000 Barclays granted a banking licence to open branches in
Tanzania
I don't want to overshadow this discussion but I won't let this pass
either, heey Aik, leave the man rest in peace:-), when did Nyerere die?
Nyerere's death was in October 1999, probably this project was one of
many "Leukemia's" which killed him, I bet this project was excruciating
and probably intensified the seriousness of his already frail condition
as he was in U.K. at the time of his death....here are even more
disturbing or interesting events if you will, in chronological order,
what a coincidence?!...do you think if he was still influential in the
government, during the negotiation process and was alive today, the
deal would have gone through? even after realizing the haziness
surrounding the usefulness of the radar? If president Kikwete concured
with further probe to this project, then something physhy went on and
Mwalimu Nyerere, in all people, given the authority, wouldn't have
allowed it, hence, he's acquitted/exonerated in this case:-).
=>1999 Barclays supplies a "soft" loan to Tanzania
=>OCTOBER 2000 Barclays granted a banking licence to open branches in
Tanzania
=>MID 2001 The World Bank, left, asks the International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO) to investigate the project
=>SEPTEMBER 2001 The World Bank persuades Tanzania to suspend payments
from Barclays to BAE pending the outcome of the investigation
=>OCTOBER 2001 An ICAO interim report finds that the BAE system is "not
adequate and is too expensive" for civil purposes
=>NOVEMBER 2001 Tanzania is judged so poor that it qualifies for World
Bank debt relief
=>DECEMBER 2001 Tony Blair and Patricia Hewitt overrule Gordon Brown
and Clare Short to grant BAE a government export licence
=>JANUARY 2002 Tanzania defends the deal
=>SPRING 2002 The system is shipped to Tanzania
=>JUNE 2002 The final ICAO report, understood to confirm that the BAE
system is too expensive for civilian purposes, is handed to the
Tanzanian Government
=>DECEMBER 2005 President Mkapa is succeeded by his Foreign Minister,
Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, after elections
=>EARLY 2006 Investigators start their inquiry
Aik
scandal. I meant don't judge the book by its cover (on this issue). The
masterminds are probably still in power (or at least were still in
control during time frame).
p.s: Nyerere was still somehow in control on other matters. And
(probably yes) this deal was easily completed after he was gone.
Mariam
Oh'k Aik, nimekuelewa, I will take your words, on this issue, as you
have said, so I give you a benefit of doubt:-). I will not even try to
remember the "Ken Star- Bill Clinton" hunt from the post about the
funds dedicated to build his Library, lol...
K-Forum
BLOCKED AND REMOVED. PLEASE CONTINUE ALL DISCUSSIONS/ RESPONSES IN THE
NEW SITE.
THANK YOU.
K-FORUM
________________