Global Fund Audit Exposes $6.8 Million Scandal Amid Denials by Health PS

The controversy surrounding the $6.8 million procurement scandal at Zambia’s Ministry of Health has exposed glaring vulnerabilities in the governance of public resources under the UPND administration. At the center of the storm is Professor Christopher Simoonga, the former Permanent Secretary for Administration, whose role in the tender process for HIV/AIDS prevention programs has been called into question by a scathing Global Fund audit. The scandal has left many questioning the integrity of the Ministry’s procurement processes and the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability.

According to the Global Fund audit report, dated July 29, 2024, the Ministry of Health’s handling of a $13.4 million grant for adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) HIV/AIDS prevention activities was marred by conflict of interest and procedural irregularities. Chreso Ministries, a faith-based organization closely associated with Chreso University where Professor Simoonga previously served as Vice Chancellor emerged as the top bidder through a selective tendering process. The audit revealed that despite declaring a conflict of interest, Professor Simoonga actively chaired the procurement proceedings and influenced the formulation of the evaluation committee.

The Global Fund’s objections were swift and unambiguous. It refused to approve the tender award to Chreso Ministries, citing concerns over inadequate public advertisement of the tender and the exclusion of other qualified NGOs. These lapses raised red flags about the fairness and transparency of the procurement process, casting a shadow over the Ministry’s credibility.

The fallout from the audit was immediate. Secretary to Cabinet Felix Nkulukusa removed Professor Simoonga from his position as Controlling Officer, appointing Dr. Kennedy Lishimpi in his stead. This move was seen as a damage-control measure aimed at appeasing the Global Fund and restoring donor confidence in Zambia’s health sector governance.

However, the UPND government’s handling of the situation has come under fire from critics who accuse it of failing to establish robust oversight mechanisms to prevent such scandals. The scandal underscores a broader governance crisis within the Ministry of Health, which has already faced scrutiny over allegations of financial mismanagement and lack of accountability.

Reacting to the allegations, Professor Simoonga has denied any wrongdoing, dismissing the claims as politically motivated and baseless. on a Kalemba facebook post ( click here), he insisted that he had no ties to Chreso Ministries or the contentious $6.8 million contract. “I have never taken a single ngwee from any government process,” he declared, asserting that the tender process was canceled after the Global Fund raised objections to its limited advertisement.

Professor Simoonga’s defense hinges on the distinction between Zambia’s procurement laws and the Global Fund’s expectations. He argued that the selective tendering process followed by the Ministry was permissible under the Zambia Public Procurement Act but ran afoul of the Global Fund’s broader participation requirements. “This is an issue of local law versus donor expectations,” he said, accusing the Global Fund of failing to provide clear guidelines on procurement standards.

The former Permanent Secretary also sought to clarify his decision to declare a conflict of interest, stating that it was a moral choice rather than a legal obligation. “I declared my interest and recused myself from the process to avoid any doubts,” he explained. Despite these assurances, the audit’s findings indicate that he continued to exert influence over the proceedings, a contradiction that critics say undermines his credibility.

The scandal has also exposed deeper fissures within the UPND administration, with some stakeholders alleging political interference and competing interests in the allocation of donor funds. Professor Simoonga attributed the controversy to power struggles among NGOs vying for control of Global Fund grants, describing the accusations as part of a broader campaign to discredit him and his record.

For the UPND government, the implications of this scandal extend far beyond the Ministry of Health. The Global Fund audit has cast a spotlight on systemic weaknesses in Zambia’s procurement processes, raising questions about the administration’s ability to manage donor resources effectively. With donor confidence hanging in the balance, the government faces mounting pressure to address the gaps identified in the audit and implement meaningful reforms to prevent future scandals.

The opposition has seized on the controversy as evidence of the UPND’s failure to deliver on its promises of transparency and good governance. Critics argue that the administration’s response to the scandal has been reactive rather than proactive, leaving the public to wonder whether deeper systemic issues are being overlooked.

At the heart of the matter is the need for a robust framework to ensure the integrity of procurement processes and safeguard public resources. The Global Fund’s recommendations to reconstitute the procurement committee and strengthen conflict-of-interest protocols offer a roadmap for reform, but their implementation will require political will and sustained effort.

As the dust settles, the $6.8 million scandal serves as a stark reminder of the stakes involved in managing donor resources in a country grappling with health challenges and economic constraints. For the UPND government, the challenge is clear: it must restore public trust and donor confidence by demonstrating a genuine commitment to transparency, accountability, and good governance.

Whether this scandal will serve as a catalyst for meaningful change or become another footnote in Zambia’s troubled history of public sector mismanagement remains to be seen. For now, the public and Zambia’s development partners are watching closely, demanding answers and accountability from a government that promised to set a new standard for governance.

Sources: Diggers and Kalemba