Hon. Luhaga Mpina, an MP for Kisesa constituency since 2005, is back from a suspension of 15 parliamentary sittings. On his first day in Parliament, he questions government moves bound in secrecy over DP World’s three Host Government Agreements (HGAs).
Mpina has become a thorn in the flesh of the ruling party, CCM. For his troubles, he was abruptly suspended. Some thought that he would coil his tail beneath his legs after his long, tenuous suspension.
They were wrong. He is bolder and incisive, raising his voice on the government’s lack of transparency, bypassing parliament oversight despite the natural resources law instructing otherwise, and demanding answers.
This article frets at DP World’s opacity and ferrets for answers to why Hon Mpina whiffs foul play. The answers ought to come out sooner to quell public anxieties stoking egregious conspiracy theories.
Hon. Mpina, finding solace in section 12 of the natural resources laws, is querying why the three HGAs were not brought to parliament for ratification according to the law.
He says during the general agreement deliberations, there was a promise that all 3 HGAs would be brought to parliament. Those agreements covered the specificities of the individual projects and answered most of the queries raised by MPs.
Also, Read: Lessons from Other Nations: How DP World Investments Fared Elsewhere
In the deliberations of the DP main agreement, questions pertaining to the duration of project periods, revenue distribution, and how much money they will contribute to individual projects were raised.
Some of the concerns arise because the leasing of the Dar es Salaam port coincided with the World Bank loan, which amounts to closer to USD 450 million.
MPs wanted to know how to differentiate the World Bank money from the DP World input to the project lest the former cash be parlayed into the latter.
Another issue was that DP World began collecting revenue and taxes before investing anything.
How can we know they were not recycling our own money as their contribution to the project? Where were action plans that the parliament could verify and enforce?
The answer was to wait for the HGAs, which statutorily require parliamentary approval before operationalisation.
The allegation that our money was used to appear as the investor’s money is not new. ABSA purchased NBC Holdings for $300 million, and later, we had second thoughts about wanting NMB back.
ABSA sold it to us for the same money we received for selling the NBC and NMB. ABSA secured NBC for free. So, it is not inconceivable that DP World is using our money to meet her contractual obligations!
Then, there were issues with the projects’ boundaries and how encompassing they were. Will the projects claim new lands for dry ports, or will such ports be constrained to the existing ones?
Who will operate those dry ports? DP World or contractors? Who will outsource them to, the investor or TPA? Again, such probing questions were deferred pending completion of the HGAs.
Others in the general public were curious whether all the skies and roads would be under the DP World, TPA, or independent contractors.
They also wondered whether we were surrendering the whole country under the investor’s auspices of influence or if some specific skies and passages would come under DP World management.
Once more, HGAs were hailed as a panacea for fumigating such worries. Concerns were raised about what would happen to TPA staff across the country.
The government promised that not a single job would be lost. Once more, many doubted whether that promise held water, given that TPA’s role will be limited to the regulator. So why will TPA need all the employees numbering over 600?
Besides, TPA’s staple revenue sources have been rechannelled to new foreign investors, and the money is paid to the Treasury, not to TPA. How can TPA clear her staff bills without government subsidies?
The response was from HGAs; specific manpower requirements will be clarified. So, patience was all that was needed.
The main agreement mentioned other ports besides the targeted Dar es Salaam one, but assurances were made that DP would not place anyone under her watch.
Read Related: MP Luhaga Mpina Takes Tanzanian Top Officials to Court Over Sugar Import Scandal
But questions lingered: Why mention them in the main agreement if they were not part of the DP World swoop? The response was that since they will have no HGAs, they cannot be an issue of concern.
We are being ambushed with a tiny USD 250 million investor share of the project contribution, which should be chicken feed for the six months they have been running the port.
Many are now asking if this peanut is all the investment is bringing to the table.
Were we not accosted with billion figures as part of the DP World contribution? Or is this the first instalment? I am deeply afraid it could also be our own money being laundered.
A well-guarded secret is what we have experienced since this investor began running our precious port in the last six months.
We are being bombarded with time reductions in handling cargo and ships and increased shipping activity, indicating a possible revenue glut. Still, nobody is telling us what we have garnered since DP World assumed cargo handling management at Dar es Salaam port.
We also do not know whether the rumour that cargo handling fees have been tripled and transporters are feeling the cash crunch is true. If it is true, who has the power to set the said fees?
Is it them or the government? And is parliamentary oversight not needed to ensure and safeguard national interests? Again, I am sure I will be told the HGAs have covered this concern elaborately.
With the HGAs blindfolded from finding their way to the Parliament, it leaves a lot to be desired. Sometimes goodwill is botched by blunders, and could this be one of those cases?
Operating a public business of huge interest like this one in the shroud of secrecy attracts unnecessary gossip and suspicions. The revenue distribution is also of spontaneous interest.
Previously, we were given the verbal impression that the revenue-sharing formula was skewed in our favour, with us taking 60% and leaving DP World with 40%.
Now, it is a convoluted scenario of who bags what! Again, we know this is a business transaction with no revenue sharing but profit sharing.
I say so because if we distribute the revenue instead of profit, there will be no money to fund the operational costs. We know the word profit is indeterminate, particularly if you are not directly involved in the decision-making position.
Profit sharing could be a leeway to ensure nothing or too little comes our way.
Whoever prepares the balance sheet has the power to include dubious or unnecessary expenses and operational costs without any of us pointing an accusing finger at being scammed.
Gazumping expenses are designed to reduce profit considerably, leaving small changes for sharing.
If we are sharing profits, Tanzanians must oversee accounting and auditing departments, or we should accept whatever tokens DP World declares as profit for us!
The Netizens have been alleging that Tanzanian menial jobs are being taken by Indians, but we have no way of independent verification. Even our representatives in Parliament have been kept in the dark until, of course, our beloved audacious Mpina came to our rescue.
If aliens are replacing our citizens, then the aim is not only to impoverish our people but also to gouge out our eyes there.
Do they not want Tanzanians to witness questionable deals taking place there? Again, as a matter of caution, I am not sure whether the Netizens are trustworthy at all.
They could generate their narrative unrelated to the true situation at the Dar es Salaam port.
Public scrutiny is vital to giving any project the legitimacy and integrity it deserves, but keeping us in the dark raises disturbing questions and feeds conspiracy theories.
The government will provide a better service by bringing all 3 HGAs before the relevant parliamentary committee for appraisal, which will produce one report for public consumption.
In my own assessment, I have wondered why parliamentary oversight is despised, resisted, and shunned in this project.
Remember, even the main agreement did not come to Parliament easily until a public complaint was lodged, and then the agreement was hastily taken to the August House.
