Chiza ought to rescue KCU (1990) Ltd.
By
Prudence Karugendo
The prevailing controversy
over the Kagera Co-operative Union – KCU (1990) Ltd. – is neither a personal
vendetta nor a malicious outburst by wicked people against a select group
of people. The controversy simply uncovers an unpleasant picture of how
the co-operative is being mismanaged. It is, admittedly, a picture that
some people wouldn’t like to be revealed lest their opportunities are
jeopardised.
Covert moves are being taken
to portray the controversy as a problem either of envy or hatred, and
thus derail those who are trying to investigate it. However, these
calculated moves are a manifestation of a drowning person who tries to
clutch at anything. Why on earth should one be abhorred if what one is
doing is considered to be the right thing?
What the coffee growers in
Kagera region find difficult to comprehend is that the world over coffee
growing connotes relative well-being to growers; whereas to them they
have been turned into destitution and treated like ignoramuses! The
contention here is that coffee growers from areas where the KCU (1990)
Ltd. has mandate, who in fact are the members forming up this particular
co-operative, have a number of fundamental complaints emanating from what
they perceive to be its mismanagement.
The pertinent questions are
answered by the Kagera coffee growers themselves while not only pointing
accusingly at the KCU (1990) Ltd., but also without mincing words that it
is the cause of the predicament. Consequently, the coffee growers decided
to blow the whistle incessantly on the relevant authority to let it
rescue the wobbling co-operative. If that is done timely, the coffee
growers who are being forced to live in dire poverty, will automatically
be liberated. Their argument keeps reverberating, that why should they be
so poor whilst they are producers of one of the major world cash crops?
There are, specifically, two
things which the Kagera coffee growers consider to justify how the KCU
(1990) Ltd. turned into a demon that devours irrespective whether it
knows them. The two things are: the co-operative itself, and its
management.
The coffee growers assert that
their co-operative by itself can’t be the cause of their poverty, because
it was founded to combat it. What they believe to be the root cause of
their predicament is the current management of the KCU (1990) Ltd.
Nevertheless, they wonder why should the situation be let to be
what it is while the owners of the co-operative, namely the co-operative
members themselves, are alive and kicking! That is particularly why they
are now demanding the authority in charge of co-operative issues to
intervene and rectify the situation which is getting out of hand.
Suspicions and accusations by
many of the Kagera coffee growers are directed squarely at the KCU (1990)
Ltd. General Manager, Mr. Vedasto Ngaiza and, to a certain extent, the
Board of Directors which, ironically, is mandated to oversee the
co-operative. The co-operative members, on the other hand, are disgusted
with the Board because, pityingly, it is bulldozed by the General Manager
and has to abide by his orders instead of what it is expected to do,
overseeing and giving directives. Various inappropriate allowances which
are given by the General Manager to the Board have been a well calculated
bait to silence it.
The KCU (1990) Ltd. members
allege that Mr. Ngaiza has destabilised the co-operative since 2002 when
he was appointed as General Manager. He is being accused of running the
co-operative as if it is a personal property. Whatever he decides has to
be implemented even if it is not helpful to the co-operative, despite the
fact that there is the Board of Directors in place.
The members of the KCU (1990)
Ltd. have painstakingly made a close follow up on what is happening in
their co-operative. Hence, they have enumerated several bizarre incidents
directly involving the General Manager.
One of the incidents is the
accident which he got while driving a co-operative vehicle, a Nissan
model with registration T801 ATX. This happened at Kyetema, on Biharamulo
road, in Bukoba rural. The General Manager was on a private mission.
Although the insurance company chipped in, the co-operative paid 16
million shillings for the vehicle’s repairs.
Another incident is the Hotel
Yaasila transaction. The KCU (1990) Ltd. General Manager bought the hotel
purporting that it is a co-operative property, without adhering to laid
down procurement procedures. The Board of Directors, for example, was not
consulted for advice. Moreover, last year (2012) during the Annual
General Meeting of the KCU (1990) Ltd., the General Manager’s annual
report did not mention anywhere that the co-operative now owns Hotel
Yaasila.
The third incident has to do
with a contractor who owns the Taki Enterprises. It is claimed that the
contractor is so close to Mr. Ngaiza and therefore gets dubious tenders
to either construct or repair the KCU (1990) Ltd. buildings.
The construction of a KCU
(1990) Ltd. house on One Way street in Bukoba town is the fourth
incident. The contractor who is a suspect of being awarded dubious
tenders by the General Manager was contracted to build the house under
discussion. Initially the agreed amount by both parties to do the work
was Tshs. 561, 001, 000. But even before the work’s commencement, the
amount was changed by both parties to 761 million shillings and
disbursed to the contractor without delay. Surprisingly, up to now
the house is still under construction. It is perceived that due to the
slow pace at which the project is being executed, upon completion the
house will cost about 1.1 billion shillings. Obviously that amount will
be twice as much.
Other notable losses to the
co-operative are projects which are initiated and then abandoned on the
pretext of priorities. A good example is a construction project in
the Rumuli area in Bukoba town. A remarkable foundation was laid down
only to be abandoned. An iron sheets fence was built round the
foundation, and it is repaired every now and then due to the heavy rains
in Bukoba town. This is another venture that consumes the co-operative
funds.
The stakeholders have
concluded that such a state of affairs is an indication that the KCU
(1990) Ltd. General Manager is either indifferent to the property of
coffee growers who happen to be his employers, or ignorant of Project
Management. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have carelessly caused the above
enumerated losses to the co-operative.
The other thing which the
co-operative members are dissatisfied with is non-adherence to
procurement procedures. The financial regulations of the co-operative
state that any procurement exceeding 300,000 shillings should be
authorised by the Finance, Planning and Employment Committee. Though many
of the regulations in force have been overtaken by time, still common
sense must prevail to sort out what should be authorised by the committee
before procurement.
The KCU (1990) Ltd.
building which is on the Kashozi Road in Bukoba town, for instance,
cost about 32 million shillings to renovate, but the expenditure was not
authorised by any committee. However, the LPO was prepared after getting
the green light from the Chairman of the Board of Directors who acted
according to the General Manager’s instruction.
There are many other
activities, particularly renovation ones, which have been carried out at
exorbitant costs without the Board’s authorisation. One of such
activities is the renovation of the house located in the Zamzamu area, in
Bukoba town.
It is asserted, too, by the
coffee growers that the KCU (1990) Ltd. General Manager has, strangely,
embarked on a divide and rule management approach. Employment in the
co-operative, for instance, is based on the consequent groups contrary to
the directive of the Board of Directors which states that all employees
ought to get similar work contracts.
The last accusation is the
humiliation of the KCU (1990) Ltd. employees by the suspension of their
allowances on the pretext that the co-operative is in the red whereas
other expenditure is not affected. The employees say that the
General Manager has the propensity to humiliate them by claiming that the
co-operative is in financial problems. They are sceptical because they
don’t understand why is it that when it comes to their allowances
the co-operative has no money, but it is readily available for
uncalled-for expenditure!
All in all, the members of the
KCU (1990) Ltd. are presenting the co-operative controversy to the
Minister of Agriculture, Food and Co-operatives, Christopher Chiza, for
action. The Minister’s response will either rescue the co-operative
members or ditch them.
prudencekarugendo@yahoo.com
0784 989 512