Fraudulent payments at DPM’s Office

MBABANE – Fraudulent payments, no letters of award for projects and missing documents characterise some of the troubles brewing in the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office (DPMO).

The DPMO has been in the spotlight in the past few weeks for the wrong reasons, after it was revealed that there was unresolved conflict within the management during their appearance before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

The Principal Secretary in the DPMO, Makhosini Mndawe, before being told to return at a later date for the PAC sitting, had formulated responses to audit queries identified by the Auditor General, Timothy Matsebula.

The AG, in his 2021 Finance Audit Report, noted that the DPMO paid Slomoes Corporation

in advance for installing a security system. These allegations are still under discussion before that PAC. It was reported that the payments were made without verifying the status completion and assessment of the installation of the security system.

“Also, there was no monitoring during the installation of the security system. Furthermore, the system was non-functional at the inter-ministerial building,” reported the AG.

Response

In response, the PS stated that the payment voucher was initially rejected by the controlling officer because there was no letter of award for the project.

“Eventually, it was discovered that a payment was made without the controlling officer’s knowledge. The officer-in-charge was questioned about this payment but denied knowledge,” said Mndawe.

Another startling finding by the AG was that of payment for incorrect furniture delivered. During physical verification of stores, the AG noted that the suppliers did not deliver some of the furniture as per the catalogue and purchase orders.

In his response, the PS said the suppliers of the furniture all displayed similar traits of dishonesty.

“The officer acknowledged receipt of the items from the suppliers. However, the received items were of lesser value than what was ordered. As much as the suppliers were different, they all displayed similar traits of dishonesty. The officer-in-charge acknowledged the discrepancies occurred, and the office’s effort to recover the funds is ongoing. The office will engage the Office of the Attorney General to recover the funds lost,” submitted the PS.