UDA yauzwa kwa bei chee, Ofisi zake Zavamiwa

[Kichuguu]

Hvi mnasahau kuwa utajiri wa meya wa dar umetokana na kufilisi chibuku na kufilisi mradi wa mabasi ya wanafunzi uliokuwa chini ya UVCCM Dar?

 

[SHERRIF ARPAIO]

Magamba noma yahani pamoja na kilio chetu hiki hawatusikii tu?

Wakuwalaumu sio Magamba bali wanaowapigia kura hasa wakazi wa jimbo la Ilala, Temeke, Kigamboni yaani inabidi mpimwe akili....mnaboa sana

 

[BAK]

Ufisadi wa kutisha UDA • Yauzwa kwa mil. 288/- badala ya bil. 1.4/- na Mwandishi wetu Tanzania Daima

SHIRIKA la Usafiri Jijini Dar es Salaam (UDA), limebinafsishwa kwa Kampuni ya Simon Group Limited kwa bei ya kutupwa ya sh milioni 285 badala ya sh bilioni 1.4. Kibaya zaidi, shirika hilo limebinafsishwa kwa kampuni hiyo bila kuwashirikisha wanahisa kwa sababu zisizojulikana. Wanahisa wa shirika hilo linalokadiriwa kuwa na mtaji wa sh bilioni 12 ni Jiji la Dar es Salaam (24.5), Serikali (23) na asilimia 52.5, zimechukuliwa na mwekezaji mpya ambaye ni Simon Group Limited. Uchunguzi uliofanywa na gazeti hili, umebaini kuwa Simon Group Ltd, yenye makao yake jijini Mwanza, imeuziwa hisa 52.5 za UDA ambazo zilikuwa chini ya Msajili wa Hazina. Katika moja ya barua ya Katibu Mkuu Ofisi ya Waziri Mkuu Tawala za Mikoa na Serikali za Mitaa (TAMISEMI) Februari 28 mwaka huu, iliyotiwa saini na ofisa aliyejitambulisha kwa jina moja la Mgendera, kwenda kwa Meneja Mkuu wa UDA, ilimuagiza asitishe uuzaji wa hisa hizo kwa madai kuwa shirika hilo la umma lipo chini ya Consolidated Holding Corporation (CHC) wanaosimamia ubinafsishaji wa mashirika ya umma. Aidha, uchunguzi umebaini kuwa mnunuzi huyo amepewa baraka za ununuzi na bodi ya wakurugenzi ya UDA, inayoongozwa na Mwenyekiti wake, Iddi Simba. Simon Group Ltd imelipa shilingi milioni 285.6 ambazo ni asilimia 12 ya hisa za UDA zipatazo 15,000,000. Kwa mujibu wa nyaraka za mauzo ya shirika hilo ambazo nakala zake tunazo, zinabainisha kuwa Machi 4, mwaka huu, kampuni hiyo iliilipa UDA sh milioni 200 kwa stakabadhi namba 16628, na stakabadhi namba 16629 ya sh milioni 85 ikiwa ni sehemu ya malipo ya hisa 7,880,303, sawa na sh 145 kwa kila hisa. Malipo hayo yalifanyika kwa ahadi kuwa hisa zilizosalia zingelipwa ndani ya siku 120, jambo ambalo halikufanyika hadi Juni 10, mwaka huu. Badala yake inadaiwa kuwa mwekezaji huyo, alifika katika ofisi za UDA na kujitangaza kuwa ndiye mwekezaji mpya aliyenunua hisa za UDA kwa asilimia 52.5. Hata hivyo Mkurugenzi Mtendaji wa Kampuni ya Simon Group Ltd, Robert Kisena, anadaiwa kuvunja ofisi ya Meneja Mkuu wa shirika hilo, Victor Milanzi na kuchukua nyaraka muhimu zikiwamo hati za umiliki wa ardhi na kutuma ujumbe wa maandishi kwa njia ya simu ya mkononi, akitishia maisha ya Milanzi. Kwa mujibu wa habari hizo, Meya wa Jiji, Didas Masaburi, alishuhudia siku mwekezaji huyo alipofika ofisi za UDA na kumuondoa meneja wake, Milanzi. Milanzi alichukua tahadhari ya vitisho hivyo kwa kutoa taarifa kwa Kamanda wa Polisi Mkoa wa Temeke, David Misime na kufungua RB namba 4610/2011, lakini hakuna hatua zilizochukuliwa hadi sasa. Alipohojiwa na gazeti hili juu ya kuwapo kwa taarifa hizo, Kamanda Misime alikiri kuwapo kwa tukio hilo, lakini alisema wametumia busara kurudisha suala hilo mikononi mwa wahusika. "Ni kweli tumefikishiwa tuhuma hizo nasi tukawashauri wakayazungumze kwa kuwa tumebaini mkataba wa UDA na mwekezezaji una hitilafu zinazosababisha misuguano hiyo," alisema Kamanda Misime. Naye Mwenyekiti wa Bodi ya Wakurugenzi wa UDA, Iddi Simba, alipohojiwa ushiriki wa bodi yake katika sakata la mwekezaji huyo, alisema suala hilo amelipeleka kwa wahusika ambao ni Consolidated Holding Corporation (CHC), hivyo hawezi kulitolea maelezo yoyote kwa kuwa wao ndio wenye mamlaka. Mkurugenzi wa Simon Group Ltd, Robert Kisena, alipoulizwa juu ya sakata hili, hakuwa tayari kutoa ushirikiano na badala yake alisema CHC wanatarajia kutolea ufafanuzi suala hilo. Kwa upande wa CHC, msemaji wake, Joseph Mapunda, jana aliitisha mkutano na waandishi wa habari na kukiri kuwapo kwa mvutano kati ya UDA na mwekezaji huyo. "Ni kweli kuna mvutano na mwekezaji, hivi sasa hatuna cha kuzungunza kwa vile ametufungulia kesi Mahakama Kuu ya biashara inayohusu madai. Mshitakiwa namba moja UDA na sisi washitakiwa namba mbili. Kesi hiyo ilifunguliwa Desemba 22, mwaka jana na kupewa namba 100/2010," alisema Mapunda. Meya wa jiji alipohojiwa juu ya ushiriki wake kumng'oa Milanzi, alisema alihusika kwa kuwawakilisha wana hisa upande wa jiji, baada ya kupata malalamiko kutoka kwa mwekezaji huyo kuwa fedha alizonunulia hisa zimetumika vibaya. "Ni kweli nilihusika kumsimamisha meneja wa UDA kwa kuwa mwekezaji alilalamika namna fedha alizotoa zilivyotumika vibaya, nikachukua hatua za awali ili kunusuru hali hiyo, ikiwamo kufunga akaunti zote," alisema Masaburi. Akizungumzia mkataba uliotumika kuruhusu mwekezaji huyo kumiliki shirika hilo la umma, alisema mkataba huo aliukuta umeshasainiwa na Bodi ya Wakurugenzi wa UDA, hivyo asingeweza kuingilia kati kwa kuwa mahakama ndiyo inaweza kuutengua. "Unajua mwandishi, ule mkataba nimeusoma, kuna vitu vingine kama vile hisa alizouziwa Simon Group ni zile ambazo hazijagawiwa ambazo ni asilimia 52.5, jiji linamiliki asilimia 24.5 na serikali inamiliki asilimia 23, ukiangalia mwekezaji anaunda timu ya utawala," alisema. Aidha, alisema hivi karibuni madiwani watafanya kikao ambapo pamoja na mambo mengine watachambua kuona kama mkataba huo una maslahi kwa taifa au la Kwa upande wake, Milanzi alisema hakutendewa haki kwani bodi iliyomwajiri, ndiyo yenye mamlaka ya kumwachisha kazi. "Mimi niliajiriwa na bodi ya wakurugenzi wa UDA na ndio wanaopaswa kunipa barua ya kuniondoa kazini, haiwezekani dhamana niliyopewa ya kuongoza na kusimamia shirika la umma nikabidhi bila maandishi," alisema Milanzi. UDA ina mtaji unaofikia sh bilioni 11.7, yakiwemo mabasi 20, wafanyakazi 120 samani za ofisi, maghala na maeneo ya wazi. ​

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Nimepata document fulani (Thanks Ka-nzi) ambayo inaonesha picha itakavyochezwa na inajibu kwanini UDA haikugeuzwa kuwa DART. Kumbe DART wanaweza kushirikisha makampuni binafsi katikahiyo "rapid transit" na UDA ilionekana one of the best kushirikishwa hasa kwa kuwa tayari ilikuwa established n.k Ndio nikaelewa kuwa wanataka kuiuza halafu wao waje kwenye DART na kuanza kutengeneza fedha kama watu binafsi wenye akili mbovu!!!!

 

[Nyambala]

Nimepata document fulani (Thanks Ka-nzi) ambayo inaonesha picha itakavyochezwa na inajibu kwanini UDA haikugeuzwa kuwa DART. Kumbe DART wanaweza kushirikisha makampuni binafsi katikahiyo "rapid transit" na UDA ilionekana one of the best kushirikishwa hasa kwa kuwa tayari ilikuwa established n.k Ndio nikaelewa kuwa wanataka kuiuza halafu wao waje kwenye DART na kuanza kutengeneza fedha kama watu binafsi wenye akili mbovu!!!!

Duh!!!! As usual! Lakini kinachonishangaza siku zote hawa wanaowatisha watanzania na uwekezaji huu uchwara mara nyingi ni some loosers ambao kwenye fair competition hawana rekodi yeyote ya mafanikio lakini kutokana na invinsible powers kutoka kwa watawala wetu these guys do alwayz win.

 

[SHERRIF ARPAIO]

Tutavuna tulichopanda november last year!!

 

[SHERRIF ARPAIO]

simon group ltd ni kampuni ya kijanja hivyi na mmiliki wake aligombea ubunge akaangushwa na shibuda kwa tuhuma za utapeli alizo watapeli wakulima wa pamba.

Kazi ipo mkuu

 

[EMT]

Nimepata document fulani (Thanks Ka-nzi) ambayo inaonesha picha itakavyochezwa na inajibu kwanini UDA haikugeuzwa kuwa DART. Kumbe DART wanaweza kushirikisha makampuni binafsi katikahiyo "rapid transit" na UDA ilionekana one of the best kushirikishwa hasa kwa kuwa tayari ilikuwa established n.k Ndio nikaelewa kuwa wanataka kuiuza halafu wao waje kwenye DART na kuanza kutengeneza fedha kama watu binafsi wenye akili mbovu!!!!

Inawezekana kuna ukweli. Nilikuwa nasoma study moja iliyofanywa na H Schalekamp, D Mfinanga, P Wilkinson, and R Behrens, titled "An international review of paratransit regulation and integration experiences: Lessons for public transport system rationalisation and improvement in African cities." Case study ni yao ni Integrated Rapid Transit system in Cape Town na Dar es Salaam Rapid Transit project. Hiki ndicho wanachosema kwa DART:

"The first phase is planned to have two companies each operating both trunk lines and feeder lines where bidding will give advantage to consortia which include former daladala owners and operators. Daladala owners must form into consortia and bid to win one of the two operating contracts or form a company and associate with an international bidder. International bidders are therefore required to incorporate existing operators in their bids."

Kama ulivyosema UDA is likely kuwa moja ya bidders na itaweza kushinda tenda kwa vile tayari ni very well established na ina experience kubwa katika usafirishaji wa abiria Dar Es Salaam. Hapo itakuwa imebakia nafasi ya kampuni moja ambayo itagombaniwa na kampuni nyingine. kwa vile tayari UDA ina infrastructure ya kutosha itakayoiwezesha kushinda tenda, wajanja wameona ni bora kuwekeza UDA kiana. Kitu ambacho ningetaka kujua Simon Group Ltd ina experience gani kwenye mambo ya usafirishaji abiria hasa katika jiji la Dar ES Salaam?

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

Hata hivyo, mpaka February 25, 2011, Simon Group Ltd imenunua asilimia 12 tuu ya shares kwa sh285 million na haijalipa malipo mengine yaliyobakia. Ukiangalia hapo tayari imeshavunja mkataba kuhusiana na malipo. Cha kushangaza kuna taarifa kuwa mnamo tarehe 21 mwezi ulipita, majira ya jioni, Simon Group Limited walivunja ofisi ya Meneja Mkuu wa UDA zilizopo makao makuu ya UDA Kurasini na kuchukua ofisi.

Mwenyekiti wa Bodi ya Wakurugenzi ya UDA, Iddi Simba, amekubali kuwa kweli ofisi za UDA zimevamiwa na mwekezaji wa ndani lakini suala zima linashughulikiwa na CHC. Kuna taarifa ambazo hazijadhibitishwa kuwa serikali imesimamisha mauzo ya hizo asilimia 51 ya shares za UDA kwa sababu mauzo hayakufuata taratibu zinazotakiwa.

Manager wa wa UDA, Victor Milanzi, ameripoti suala husika polisi. ACP wa polisi Temeke amesema kuna "contractual misunderstanding" kati ya UDA na hiyo kampuni na ameshauri pande zote zikae chini ili watatue tatizo kabla ya kuchukua hatua za kisheria. Pia amesema ameshauri pande zote mbili watatue tatizo lao kupitia wizara na mamlaka husika. Kaimu Waziri wa Usafirishaji, Dr Athumani Mfutakamba, amesema hana taarifa na uvamizi huo kwa vile kwa sasa yupo jimboni kwake.

Tutauza kila kitu hadi hapo cha kuuza hatutakuwa nacho baada ya hapo tutawauza watoto wetu au hata kuwatokosa jikoni ili tuwale......hizi ni laana za mwenyezi Mungu kutokana na sisi kumwaasi

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

kwanini serikali (kuu na manispaa) havitaki kuendesha Rapid Transit au Mass Transportation System. Najaribu kuangalia majiji yote makubwa yana Transit Systems - owned and operated by public firms.. why not Dar hasa mahali ambapo tayari tulikuwa na Mass Transportation Authority - UDA?

Hili hili ni swali gumu sana?

 

[EMT]

kwanini serikali (kuu na manispaa) havitaki kuendesha Rapid Transit au Mass Transportation System. Najaribu kuangalia majiji yote makubwa yana Transit Systems - owned and operated by public firms.. why not Dar hasa mahali ambapo tayari tulikuwa na Mass Transportation Authority - UDA?

Hili hili ni swali gumu sana?

Duh! Umeniwahi. Nilitaka kuuliza kitu kama hicho lakini nikajaribu kufanya ka utafiti if this is actually the case. Kweli majiji makubwa kwenye nchi zilizoendelea yana transit systems. Lakini ukiangalia kwa undani sio serikali (whether central or local) ime invest kwenye hizoo systems. Kwa mfano, Marekani, state na local governments hazijawekeza kwenye public transportation kwa sababu makampuni makubwa ya mafuta yame lobby against such investment. Kukiwa na mass public transportation ina maana kuwa watu hawataendesha tena magari yao binafsi. Matokeo yake makampuni ya mafuta yatakosa wateja. Hata car rental companies huwa wana lobby against. Uingereza nako, only 11 municipal bus companies are owned by the local government authorities.

Lakini haya yote ni kwa nchi za wenzetu. Hapa kwetu sidhani kama hizo grounds za serilali kutowekeza kwenye public transport ni relevant. Mwaka 1975, UDA ilikuwa inamiliki mabasi 374, lakini 257 ndio yalikuwa kwenye hali nzuri. Mwaka 1980 yalipungua na kufikia 142. Mwaka 2009, tunaambiwa UDA ilikuwa na mabasi 20. Labda tungalie nani amewekeza kwenye Rapid Transit ya China.

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Duh! Umeniwahi. Nilitaka kuuliza kitu kama hicho lakini nikajaribu kufanya ka utafiti if this is actually the case. Kweli majiji makubwa kwenye nchi zilizoendelea yana transit systems. Lakini ukiangalia kwa undani sio serikali (whether central or local) ime invest kwenye hizoo systems. Kwa mfano, Marekani, state na local governments hazijawekeza kwenye public transportation kwa sababu makampuni makubwa ya mafuta yame lobby against such investment. Kukiwa na mass public transportation ina maana kuwa watu hawataendesha tena magari yao binafsi. Matokeo yake makampuni ya mafuta yatakosa wateja. Hata car rental companies huwa wana lobby against. Uingereza nako, only 11 municipal bus companies are owned by the local government authorities.

Mzee, kuanzia DC, New York, LA, Chicago, Seattle n.k kote kuna public masss transport system - paid by the tax payers - owned and operated by those government or an administration (board ambayo inakuwa elected). Sehemu chache kuna ushirikiano wa Public-Private lakini kwenye miji mikubwa (ukiondoa NY ambao ni special case) Light rail na buses zinasimamiwa na public. Taxis ndio zinaenda kwenye private hands (na kwenye tax ina include cabs, limos, tour buses etc).


Lakini haya yote ni kwa nchi za wenzetu. Hapa kwetu sidhani kama hizo grounds za serilali kutowekeza kwenye public transport ni relevant. Mwaka 1975, UDA ilikuwa inamiliki mabasi 374, lakini 257 ndio yalikuwa kwenye hali nzuri. Mwaka 1980 yalipungua na kufikia 142. Mwaka 2009, tunaambiwa UDA ilikuwa na mabasi 20. Labda tungalie nani amewekeza kwenye Rapid Transit ya China.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Mzee, kuanzia DC, New York, LA, Chicago, Seattle n.k kote kuna public masss transport system - paid by the tax payers - owned and operated by those government or an administration (board ambayo inakuwa elected). Sehemu chache kuna ushirikiano wa Public-Private lakini kwenye miji mikubwa (ukiondoa NY ambao ni special case) Light rail na buses zinasimamiwa na public. Taxis ndio zinaenda kwenye private hands (na kwenye tax ina include cabs, limos, tour buses etc).

Lakini haya yote ni kwa nchi za wenzetu. Hapa kwetu sidhani kama hizo grounds za serilali kutowekeza kwenye public transport ni relevant. Mwaka 1975, UDA ilikuwa inamiliki mabasi 374, lakini 257 ndio yalikuwa kwenye hali nzuri. Mwaka 1980 yalipungua na kufikia 142. Mwaka 2009, tunaambiwa UDA ilikuwa na mabasi 20. Labda tungalie nani amewekeza kwenye Rapid Transit ya China.

Mimi nafikiri kwenye nchi kama za kwetu ni serikali ndio iwekewe kwenye hili la public transportation kama tunataka kuwa salama; tukiacha private hands, mambo ya migumu, price manipulation itakuwa ni shida sana. Jiji la Beijing lina Public transportation inamilikiwa na Jiji (chini ya Beijing Public Transportation Holdings), Shanghai wao wana kampuni Private (as far as I can tell - japo nadhani nyuma yake kuna State). Mimi naamini kwa jiji letu kubwa zaidi hili la mass transit ni lazima liwe mikononi mwa serikali (local or regional).. something like Dar Regional Transit Authority or Dar Metro Transit (DMT) ambayo ingesimamia usafiri wote wa mabasi yaendayo kasi, mabasi ya kawaida na light rail or even subway systems or people movers.

 

[EMT]

Public interests or personal interests?

For eight months now the debate about privatization of the Dar es Salaam transport firm, Usafiri Dar es Salaam or UDA in short, has attracted media attention as well as politicians and key policy makers. Some legislators, especially from Dar es Salaam region, see the decision to allow UDA's shares to be bought by a little known company, Simon Group, over the counter wasn't driven by public interests. Others, mainly those who engineered the privatization process, affirm that the move was conducted according to procedure and blessed by the Board of Directors, which represents shareholders.

Since the UDA issue emerged in Parliament in July last year, three Dar es Salaam legislators have strongly campaigned for the termination of the contract signed between the current investor, Simon Group Ltd and the transport firm. But the matter took a new twist when two weekly newspapers, The East African published in Nairobi, and Mwanahalisi, published in Dar es Salaam, claimed that some of those lawmakers currently calling for the suspension of the new investor were doing so not because of the public interest, but for personal interests.

According to assertions by the two weeklies, personal interests were placed above public interests, with some leaders acting as ‘surrogates ' for a third party who has vested interests in cash-strapped UDA, thus providing the reason for the current battle. The third party was identified as none other than Quality Group---a city-based real estate firm with close connections to banks and developers in Nairobi and elsewhere.

The twist didn't end there. Last week, company chief executive Yusuf Manji issued a strongly worded statement accusing Simon Group Ltd of trying to use Quality Group as a ‘shield' against recent attacks directed to the investor by some Dar legislators. The statement published as an advert as well as a news story also questioned how Simon Group won the tender, intoning that the company should explain to the public how the bidding was done, instead of trying to shift the blame to Quality Group.

In its response, Simon Group placed an advert in some tabloids, which among other things qualified Manji's assertions as false, driven mainly by malice after the latter failed to succeed in its August 2007 bid to acquire UDA's shares at a price of Sh1.5 billion. Simon Group's statement made it clear that it acquired the shares through a thorough process, documented by both sides and blessed by the Board of Directors.

In its response, Simon Group wanted Manji to ask himself why he didn't win the tender, instead of wasting his time to question how the company acquired the 51 percent stakes over the counter. We also learn that one of the bidders in the 2007 bidding process but failed to win the UDA privatization tender, wrote a letter first to the Consolidated Holdings Corporation(CHC) seeking clarification on why it wasn't awarded the tender, despite the fact that it was the sole bidder.

The very same company also wrote a letter this year to two Parliamentary Committees, one for public accounts chaired by Zitto Kabwe and another finance and economy chaired by Dr. Abdallah Kigoda, seeking the intervention of the two in the current UDA privatization saga. Both letters were written in January, on the basis of documents seen by the Guardian on Sunday. The letters maintain that the previous attempt by the company to get clarification wasn't answered by CHC. The company further claims that even during its 2007 bid, it didn't get a reply on whether it won or lost the tender. Everything went quietly.

"We have learned via the media that UDA has been privatised via the sale of 51% unallocated shares in UDA to M/S Simon Group Limited (SGL) and we write to you because CHC, the successor of PSRC is charged with the liquidation of public enterprises, divestitures, monitoring and evaluation of privatised entities among other responsibilities," read part of the letter from Quality Group written on July 21, 2011.

Among other things, the letter stated that Quality Group submitted its bid to acquire 49 percent in UDA's stakes to the defunct PSRC on August 15 2007, but despite being the sole bidder, the company wasn't awarded the tender. This letter was written a week before the UDA dispute was raised by Dar es Salaam lawmakers, including Musa Azzan ‘Zungu,' Iddi Azzan and Abbas Mtemvu. The timing of this letter, and the parliamentary debate about UDA, bring up more questions than answers.

In the letter signed by Manji directed to Methusela Mbajo, Quality Group wanted CHC to clarify why its bid was rejected, but by extension why it facilitated Simon Group to acquire shares in UDA without due care to divestiture procedures. Looking only at the headlines, UDA's privatisation had vast attraction and the magnitude of how it rocked the National Assembly mid last year was equally massive. The truth remains very clear, however, that the revelation that Manji also placed an unsuccessful bid to acquire UDA shares brought a new twist on the matter.

Following this revelation by Manji himself through the advert published by newspapers two weeks ago, it's now clear that the battle between the control of UDA's stakes is between Simon Group Ltd and Quality Group Ltd. The Guardian on Sunday has established that after many attempts by investors to buy UDA's shares failed to yield positive results, the Board of Directors was annoyed because it spent so much energy and resources, hoping to get the shareholder only to be duped at the last meeting.

According to the documented details, UDA's Board of Directors under the chairmanship of Iddi Simba decided that any serious investment who was eyeing the transport firm should prove that he or she was serious to avoid the previous failures. It's on this grounds that when the little known company, Simon Group Ltd, expressed its willingness, to invest in the cash-strapped transport firm, the Board of Directors first of all wanted a commitment fees, business plan, company profile, and financial capability.

According to the details gathered by the Guardian on Sunday, when all these were submitted, the Board still decided to commission an independent consultant, to conduct a due diligence analysis about the potential bidder in order to establish whether the firm was a credible investor, or just another ‘ghost' company. In this case we are told that a local consultant firm, Daima Associates, was commissioned to undertake due diligence about Simon Group's capability to invest in the cash-strapped firm, and finally, the report came out that it was capable of doing so, and thus it could acquire the shares.

According to available details, during the due diligence study, the consultant visited Simon Group's businesses in Mwanza, Shinyanga and Dar es Salaam as well as talking to some local banks in order to establish the financial profile and capacity of this little known firm. After all parties were satisfied, the deal went ahead, and the new investor invested about Sh1.2billion as initial capital, promising to dole out more funds in future including acquiring modern buses to improve UDA's capacity to do business in Dar es Salaam.

At present, according to Simon Group, about 30 modern buses have been purchased and registered ready to operate in Dar es Salaam, but since the wrangling was still going on, nothing has so far taken place. All these 30 buses are parked at Kurasini yard as various groups with vested interests continue to fight for the control of the now purchased firm.
Dar es Salaam MPs have claimed that the money used to purchase those 30 buses came from UDA's account, and not from Simon Group Ltd.

In a business sense, since Simon Group acquired the 51 percent by investing initial capital of Sh1.2 billion, and it continued to oversee the company's operation including paying all salaries, taxes and other operational cost, it's not clear why the MPs are trying to make the Sh1.2bn investment UDA property and not Simon Group money, which was used to buy the 30 new buses.

The business procedures are very clear. After acquiring majority shares in UDA, Simon Group Ltd became the key operator in daily operationa of the transport firm, but in collaboration with the Dar es Salaam City Council, which is also the other shareholder. Therefore if Simon Group and Dar City Mayor, Didas Masaburi, authorised the withdrawal of about $100,000 from UDA's account, which was then used to buy the 30 new buses, why all the fuss?

According to the Memorandum of Understanding signed in tripartite, Simon Group is recognised as one of three shareholders, whereby under this document, the new investor is regarded as the main shareholder until proved otherwise by a new CHC evaluation. One thing that the critics of this deal have raised is that the tender wasn't advertised as stipulated in Public Procurement Act of 2004, and there was wasn't any competitive bidding that finally gave Simon Group a win to take over majority shares in UDA.

In responding to this query, Simon Group stated that the process was done over the counter, which is also allowed under normal procedure, and therefore the process didn't infringe procedure or regulations as claimed by critics. In 2006/7 when Air Tanzania Co. Ltd was in financial crisis after ending its partnership with South African Airways, the government allowed an investor from China to take over shares over the counter without announcing a tender. Though the partnership didn't work, it was initially done through similar arrangements used by the UDA Board of Directors in its share sale to Simon Group.

Whether this process is contrary to what the legislation explicits foresees is something that corporate lawyers should help the public to figure out, as to where the truth lies. According to bidding regulations, you don't qualify simply because you are a sole bidder or the highest bidder. There are various factors that determine who wins and why in the bidding process.

In the UDA case we are told that in 2007, Quality Group was the sole bidder, but its tender didn't go through. The company now wants to know why it didn't win the tender. What are the rules? Is it a must for a bidder to be informed about why it didn't win? Can you win simply because you are the highest bidder? Can you win simply because you are the sole bidder?

One corporate lawyer who declined to be named citing his business interests told the Guardian on Sunday, "being a sole bidder or highest doesn't give you a guarantee to win any tender…there are no binding rules that the bidder should be informed about why he or she lost the tender."

Who is Simon Group?

In a close follow up of all the fuss about UDA's privatization, the question that emerges especially from the critics is who is Simon Group? Who are these people who have the guts to beat the ‘big brothers' of Dar es Salaam? This question reminds us what former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said about US President Barack Obama soon after the latter was elected the first black President: "He has been elected, yes, but he is not one of us."

What does this mean? You might have won but you are not one of us because you either don't belong to the elite (white supremacy) and you are simply a black guy with African origins. Winning businesses in a fragile and corrupt city like Dar es Salaam, if you are nobody, raises more questions than answers. This is because we have created a system where people inherit deals, political posts and wealth whereby for an outsider - if you want to be on the safe side - you either join these groups or pay them for protection.

"There's a small group of tycoons that controls lucrative government tenders and deals…in return this group finances some politicians during elections in order to have powerful loyalties in the corridors of power," one MP told the Guardian on Sunday.

Simon Group was a little known and so was his founder, Robert Kisena, a young entrepreneur from Shinyanga. Many people I talked to were convinced that the young man is not alone and there must be powerful sleeping partners behind the scenes. This being the case, the problem might not be the process, but Simon Group because like Berlusconi put it, ‘he is not one of us' though he has made some fortunes.

This problem is not only facing those doing business but even those aspiring to join politics in a metropolitan environment like Dar es Salaam. There are those who see themselves as indigenous, while others are described as ‘newcomers' or upstarts.

Public interests or personal interests?

Another question that has clouded the ongoing wrangle about UDA's privatization is whether the critics are driven by public interests or personal interests. The biggest challenge for many people is where to draw the demarcation between personal interests and public interests. For instance if during your election as a legislator, you were heavily financed by a certain businessman, where do you stand the next day when your financier is involved in a fight with a third party?

Even if you have genuine concern, but since one of the parties involved in the fight you are involved financed you during your election campaign, it will be very difficult for the public to believe your cause. That's why in many countries leaders of political parties as well as poll aspirants are required to disclose the details of those funding them during the campaign, so that the public can figure out the likely business connections.

In so doing, once there's a burning issue involving a third party and one of your financiers, you can not be expected to be an honest broker between the two as the public knows where your loyalties are located. Tanzania needs this kind of disclosure to avoid mixing personal interests and public interests. For instance one MP from Dar es Salaam said he was willing to see UDA dying, a natural death, instead of allowing Simon Group to buy shares in the cash-strapped transport firm.

This kind of stance reminds Tanzanians the statement issued by some MPs two years ago about Tanzania Electricity Supply Company's bid to buy Dowans' power generating plants, when the lawmakers said "they were ready to see Tanzania plunging into total darkness rathern than seeing the state owned power utility buying the plants."

Finally, the country was plunged into total darkness last year and the very same MPs were also at the forefront demanding electricity at all costs even if that power came from Dowans' plants they vehemently rejected a year earlier. The Dar es Salaam MPs might have genuine concern, but since one of the interested parties in UDA's privatisation is their best friend (not all of them) and a political ally, it's then very challenging to understand whether their fight is driven by public interests or personal interests.

Why all the fuss?

Since the government has decided to re-evaluate the actual value of the company in order to establish whether the amount paid by the investor was the right price or not, there's no need to shout loudly. Following the situation, the fate of UDA and its associated sale of part of shares stands to face delays as the government had decided to carry out a second evaluation to establish the actual value of the company. The fresh evaluation would be conducted by the Consolidated Holding Corporation (CHC), the state body charged with overseeing public organisations listed for divestiture.

Shareholders: Dar es Salaam City Council, Simon Group Ltd and the government through the Treasury Registrar agreed in principle last December that the second evaluation should be done for the purpose of clearing the air over the much hyped malpractices and non-adherence to set procedures during the sale of UDA shares to Simon Group Ltd in February 2011.

According to the Memorandum of Understanding signed in tripartite, Simon Group is recognised as one of three shareholders, though there is no agreement as to who should be regarded as the main shareholder until the evaluation is concluded by CHC.

During the meeting which was a follow-up of another stakeholders' meeting held on November 9, 2011 the parties agreed on the proposal tabled by Treasury Registrar that 49 percent owned by the government be sold to investor - Simon Group on top of the unallotted shares, which were under dispute.

Let CHC conduct this task without pressure from politicians or those with vested interests crying ‘wolf,' that all their concerns are solidly in the public interest.

Source: Home

 

[EMT]

Zitto Zuberi Kabwe‏@zittokabweSpecial Audit on UDA, CHC and MSD out. POAC to handle them for further actions #CAG2012Report

 

[EMT]

Zipo habari kuwa iliyokuwa inawakabili akina Idd Simba imefutwa.

 

[Kidzude]

UDA Haitakiwi kuuzwa intakiwa kukodishwa, jamaa wanataka hati tu si kuendesha biashara. tupeni mali zote za UDA .

 

[Chimbuvu]

Watanzania nashindwa kuwaelewa mnataka nini?Mengi aliponyimwa tenda ya kilimanjaro hotel mkaanza kuilalamikia serikali,wazungu wakija kuwekeza mnailalamikia serikali,mwekezaji wa ndani SIMON GROUP ama tunamwita Robert Kisena tena mnalalamika,surely Kisena he is a nice guy nshapata kuongea nae kuna malori yake yalikuwa yananifanya kazi.
TUACHE KULALAMIKA.

 

[EMT]

surely Kisena he is a nice guy nshapata kuongea nae kuna malori yake yalikuwa yananifanya kazi.

Una maana gani unaposema he is a nice guy? Kwa kuongea nae tuu?

Probably ndo maana mahakama imetupilia mbali kesi because, watuhumiwa ni nice guys.

Hapo kwenye malori sujakuelewa una maana gani.

 

[Chimbuvu]

namaanisha jamaa yupo humble sana,wala huwezi amini kama ukiongea nae,kuhusu malori anamiliki malori makubwa ya mizigo na nilishawahi yatumia kuna kazi yalikuwa yanafanya.

Una maana gani unaposema he is a nice guy? Kwa kuongea nae tuu?

Probably ndo maana mahakama imetupilia mbali kesi because, watuhumiwa ni nice guys.

Hapo kwenye malori sujakuelewa una maana gani.