An empowering Act indeed, but ...
I Nthe Times of Eswatini SUNDAY issue of January 7, 2024, it was reported that His Majesty King Mswati III had signed the yet to be gazetted at the time Citizen Economic Empowerment Act Bill into law.
It was further reported that in an interview, the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Trade, Manqoba Khumalo, explained that a council would be appointed to work on, among other things, crafting the regulations governing the Citizen Economic Empowerment Act.
The focus of this article will be on Section 16. (2) of the Act which states:
“The council shall develop, in consultation with the authority established by law to deal with the procurement of public services and goods, policy guidelines to ensure that citizens and local companies are given preferential treatment in accessing and being awarded tenders for procurement of services and goods for any State institution.”
This Bill essentially seeks to level the playing field to some degree for indigenous emaSwati-owned companies competing for contracts for the supply of services and goods for any State institution.
Of greater significance is the fact that the Bill places pressure on local companies serious about winning government tenders, in particular in those areas traditionally dominated by companies of non-indigenous persons or foreign companies, to prepare themselves to compete in a scenario reminiscent of the David and Goliath dynamic.
WORK HARD AND SMART
However, like David, Eswatini’s smaller companies need not fear, but must prepare to work hard and smart.
For one thing, the management of companies owned by emaSwati must understand and realise that they will not win tenders, or be awarded contracts, on the basis of purely being owned by indigenous emaSwati.
They will win tenders based on their level of professionalism, commitment to quality and strict adherence to terms and conditions of service as stipulated in tender documents.
For another, companies owned by emaSwati must not expect to be treated with kid gloves, mollycoddled or given special treatment in fulfilling their end-of-the contract or agreement as stipulated in the tender documents.
This essentially now means that emaSwati need to up their game in terms of best practices as they relate to service delivery.
This is particularly the case where local emaSwati-owned companies partner with foreign companies.
For example, Section 41 (1) of the Construction Industry Council (CIC) Act reads:
“A person shall not award a contract for any construction works to a foreign company or foreign firm unless the foreign company or foreign firm undertakes the construction works in partnership or jointly with a Swazi company or Swazi firm.”
However, it must be borne in mind that a foreign company will only enter into an agreement with a local company once the former have satisfied themselves that the Swazi-owned company possesses the necessary skills, professional reputation, or has been vetted by a reputable professional body and is adequately insured, among other criteria.
The reason for being adequately insured relates to the fact that a foreign company engaged to construct, build or set up a facility worth several million, or billion, Emalangeni, needs to ensure that the local company it partners with, as alluded to earlier, is competent enough to perform their end of the work related to the project.
If anything should go wrong related to the work done by the local company, this will result in rework, which implies extra costs.
Rework refers to a task being performed for the second time because certain standards were not adhered to the first time around. Who pays for rework in our example? The local company, of course.
JOINT VENTURE
The above is just one example of the complexities involved in entering into a joint venture or the type of arrangement stipulated in Section 41 (1) of the Construction Industry Council Act.
Basically, local companies are going to have to adapt by adopting the high standards of their foreign partner with regard to reliability, punctuality, getting it right the first time, sticking to timelines and deadlines, and generally exhibiting all round professionalism.
While on the subject of standards, a little more than a couple of weeks ago, our local dailies carried horrifying stories and pictures of structures that had their roofs etc. blown off during heavy storms accompanied by strong winds.
Some of the structures included modern flats or apartments e.g. Mobeni Flats in Matsapha, some government built schools and other infrastructure like one or two modern double storey buildings etc.
It is safe to presume that the structures mentioned above were built by qualified construction personnel. The worrying aspect of all this is that damage such as that described above occurs on a fairly regular basis during heavy storms around the country.
The structures described above were built, presumably, according to standards, as alluded to earlier, which comply with CIC standards governing the construction of modern structures, meaning that professional personnel were engaged.
In the aftermath of the most recent heavy storm which caused much damage around Matsapha, a member of CIC was interviewed by a reporter from one of our local newspapers regarding the quality of building materials used in the storm damaged structures around Matsapha.
ACCEPTABLE STANDARD
The reporter was assured that the building materials used were of an acceptable standard. Presumably, the same can be said about building materials used in other parts of the country.
This then raises the following questions:
i) If the quality of the building materials used in those storm damaged structures were deemed to be of an acceptable standard, could the problem of roofs getting blown off etc. in modern buildings be attributable to inferior or poor workmanship related to non-compliance with CIC’s building standards?
ii) Indeed, can CIC honestly assure the general public that its building standards conform to international standards?
iii) If so, can CIC assure the public that it ensures that those engaged in the construction of modern buildings such as those storm damaged structures mentioned earlier, are fully qualified to do the work they do?
iv) If so, can CIC assure the general public that the building inspectors engaged to certify buildings fit for human occupation and use for whatever purpose, are adequately qualified and vetted to work in the construction industry?
v) If so, how can CIC assure us that the people to whom some work is outsourced such as brick layers, roofing personnel etc. are not only adequately qualified, but are also people whose ethical standards can stand the scrutiny of a social ethics committee? In other words, are these people honest enough not to cut corners in the interests of ‘cost containment’, while sacrificing safety and acceptable building standards?
These questions are raised because it was reported several weeks ago that a motor vehicle workshop in Manzini collapsed, killing two people and injuring several others. When a building inspector was engaged to assess the damage, his verdict was that the building collapsed as a result of whoever built the workshop ignoring or not sticking to stipulated building codes or standards.
SKILLED LABOURERS
While recent reports by the construction industry indicate that there has been a substantial increase in the number of skilled labourers compared to previous years, building defects continue to rear their ugly heads, nevertheless.
So, we are forced to ask the following questions:
a) How, and why, is it that so-called CIC certified structures frequently show structural defects or deficiencies such as roofs being blown off, in some cases partial collapse of walls?
b) Would a forensic audit to determine the true causes of the structural damage to some structures during heavy storms shed some light on the frequency and ease with which some of these are damaged?
With regard to some of the privately owned houses, flats and other structures built in some of the densely populated areas in many towns and peri-urban areas, what role does CIC play in the certification of these structures as being fit for human habitation and not being a safety hazard to occupants and others in the immediate vicinity?
While being aware that in urban areas municipalities play a role in the certification of buildings with regard to safety and other standards, it’s unclear how far their mandate goes because the state of many structures in some of the areas mentioned earlier raises suspicions that, in fact, there is no regulation as far as building standards are concerned, or whether those who put up these structures are qualified to do the work they do.
As the expression goes, ‘seeing is believing’. The fact of the matter is that the state of housing in many areas around the country does not inspire confidence in the potential investor looking to set up some enterprise, for example, in the technology sector.
Has the time come for strengthening the regulatory framework as it relates to housing in the country? While one often marvels at some of the outstanding homesteads built in rural areas, the sad truth is that most others leave much to be desired from the point of view of not only aesthetics, but also from the point of view of their apparently limited utilitarian value.
It then becomes clear that the situation is unclear when it comes to whether or not there exists a regulatory framework with regard to safety and other considerations to buildings located in rural areas.
While the mandate of the National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA) is to provide relief to citizens affected by natural disasters such as flooding, draught etc., its role in this regard is more reactive than proactive.
FLOOD-PRONE AREAS
In truth, it would seem that if the NDMA’s mandate included a more proactive role in line with ensuring, in partnership with CIC, that safety standards are enhanced in the construction of, for example, homesteads in rural areas, including ensuring that structures in floodprone areas are fortified in some way etc., such preventive interventions would probably help mitigate the effects of some disasters when they do occur.
The issue of professional certification for those involved in various technical vocations seems quite serious when we shift our attention to motor mechanics, particularly those who have been unflatteringly referred to as ‘bush mechanics’.
Many of these ‘mechanics’ received on-the-job training, where they most probably worked alongside a poorly trained mechanic who, nevertheless, miraculously kept their neighbours’ cars, vans, bakkies and trucks on the road.
In anticipation of the imminent professionalisation of many Swazi-owned companies as a result of the new Bill, which will empower these companies to compete more professionally and effectively for tenders, proper vehicle maintenance must form part of the skills development areas for those in the ‘support’ category of operations.
For example, reports of accidents involving heavy vehicles in which the driver lost control because of a brake failure problem are not uncommon. Is it, indeed, possible that in many such incidents the problem occurred as a result of poor brake maintenance?
While we applaud the country’s authorities for enacting such an empowering piece of legislation as the Citizen Economic Empowerment Act Bill, the journey ahead promises to be long and arduous for those who will dare to take advantage of the Bill’s empowering provisions.
But, then, for such a time as this were we probably created. Let’s go for it!