In the last three years, the sector has experienced significant shifts and challenges affecting the abilities of the road organizations to conduct their work in an effective and accountable manner. The most notable of those shifts include:

1. A wave of dismissals and contract terminations, following the 2009 audits of the sector,

2. An unprecedented increase of budget allocation to roads (from approx. ZMK 1.4 trillion in 2009 to approx. ZMK 4.3 trillion in 2012) and 3. A drastic increase in the amount of domestic funding for roads (from approx ZMK 754 billion in 2009 to ZMK approx. 2.24 trillion in 2012).

The consequences of these shifts have not been thoroughly studied, especially with respect to their impact on the capacity of the Road Development Agency (RDA). There has also been very little study devoted to the relationship between politics and road allocation in Zambia.

An audit conducted by the Office of the Auditor General in 2009 precipitated the first shift; the increase in dismissals and contracts terminations. This audit was a response to the RDA’s over-commitment for its 2008 budget<sup>4</sup> . Detailed procurement, financial and technical audits revealed numerous inefficiencies in the management of road contracts and produced other troublesome findings. On _procurement_ , these findings included a: lack of drawings and condition surveys; poor quality contract documents; the absence of transparency in the selection of RDA bid evaluation committees; and a tendency of RDA tender committee to ignore bid evaluation committees’ recommendations contrary to procurement rules. When evaluating bids, procurement committees failed to take into account engineer’s estimates, making it difficult to ascertain the reasonableness of bids. In addition, the audits highlighted the absence of supervision of a number of contracts, the poor quality of works and inadequate progress reports on most of the contracts that were reviewed.

Following the presentation of the audit report to Parliament in 2010, a number of high-level staff was dismissed and new RDA and NRFA boards and chief executives were appointed<sup>5</sup> . At the time of these dismissals, a few influential voices insisted that the revealed maladministration was not simply the fault of RDA and that higher-level politicians should also be held to account<sup>6</sup> . In subsequent sections we identify trends post the 2010 audit whilst also considering the sensitive question of political influence in the RDA.

Moreover, after the scandal, cooperating partners agreed with the government on dozens of remedial measures for medium to long-term actions. They focused on correcting audit findings but also more

> 4 The over commitment amounted to ZMK1,015,817,097,718 in 2008. This resulted in serious cash flow problems in 2009.

> 5 Chimpinde, Kombe. “RDA Fires 4 Managers.” _The Post Online Newspapers_ , October 2010. <u>http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=15060&highlight=.</u>

> 6 - “Don’t Use RDA as Scapegoat - MP Mooya.” _Times of Zambia_ , June 2010. <u>http://www.zambia.co.zm/tiki read_article.php?articleId=3162; Kuwema, Moses. “It’s Difficult to Believe RDA Over-committed Govt - Kabanda.”</u> _The Post Online Newspapers_ , November 2010. <u>http://www.postzambia.com/postread_article.php?articleId=15638.</u>

5