Madam,
I write with grave concern following the recent report from the Auditor General’s Office, as reported in your widely-read newspaper, which has uncovered systemic irregularities in the procurement and use of fuel across several government departments. Of particular note is the revelation that fuel requests have, on numerous occasions, been made via SMS rather than through established requisition and authorisation procedures.
This practice is not a minor procedural lapse; it is symptomatic of deeper governance failures that threaten public trust, fiscal integrity, operational efficiency and accountability in the public sector.
Public procurement and asset consumption, including fuel, are areas where robust controls must be beyond reproach. Requisition forms, authorisation chains, logbooks and proper documentation exist for a reason: They create an auditable trail, ensure that resources are allocated according to need and policy, and reduce opportunities for misuse.
The replacement of these controls by informal SMS requests effectively circumvents these safeguards. SMS messages are inherently ephemeral, easily manipulated or lost, and rarely integrated into official records. They provide neither the granularity of detail required for verification nor the necessary signatures and approvals that demonstrate due diligence.
The auditor general’s findings indicate several concrete risks arising from the reliance on SMS for fuel requests. First, there is a heightened risk of fraudulent diversion. Without formal requisitions, it becomes far easier for individuals to obtain fuel for private use or to inflate quantities requested. Second, financial controls are undermined. Payment and reimbursement processes predicated on formal documentation cannot operate correctly if the primary request is informal.
This increases the likelihood of unauthorised expenditures slipping through the system and of vendors being paid without properly verified deliveries. Third, operational data quality suffers. Accurate fuel consumption tracking is essential for budgeting, fleet management and environmental reporting. Informal requests contribute to unreliable data, which in turn cripples planning and oversight.
Beyond these practical concerns, the use of SMS as a substitute for formal requisition processes raises ethical and reputational questions. Citizens entrust public institutions with resources precisely because those institutions are expected to manage them prudently and transparently. Any practice that appears to facilitate opaque decision-making or to enable preferential access to scarce resources corrodes public confidence. In an environment where the population rightly demands accountability and value for money, government must not tolerate shortcuts that make it difficult to demonstrate propriety.
The systemic nature of the issue, as suggested by the report, suggests that this is not merely a handful of isolated incidents or the result of individual ignorance about procedure. Instead, it points to weaknesses in institutional culture and leadership. Senior officials have a duty to set the tone for compliance.
Where leadership fails to enforce established protocols, or where those protocols are rendered ineffectual by inconsistent application, the entire integrity of the administrative process is jeopardised. The auditor general’s report should, therefore, be treated as a clarion call for leadership to restore and strengthen controls, not as an administrative nuisance to be papered over. Practical consequences of unchecked fuel misuse extend beyond finance. Irregular fuel practices have environmental implications: Unnecessary consumption increases emissions and undermines any public commitments to sustainability. They also impair service delivery, as departments that legitimately require fuel for essential services, such as healthcare outreach, maintenance of critical infrastructure and emergency response, may find supplies depleted or budgets exhausted due to misappropriation.
It is vital, therefore, that remedial action be swift, decisive and systemic. I recommend the following measures be implemented without delay:
Reinforce mandatory use of formal requisition forms for all fuel requests, whether digital or paper-based, with clear fields for purpose, vehicle identification, mileage or odometer readings, and authorising signatures. Any SMS requests must be explicitly prohibited and disregarded for processing.
Implement a centralised, auditable fuel management system that logs requisitions, approvals, deliveries and consumption. Where possible, this system should allow for electronic approvals with user authentication and immutable records, ensuring a clear chain of custody. Conduct a comprehensive audit of fuel accounts across departments for the previous three years to quantify the extent of irregularities and recover misallocated funds where feasible.
Institute mandatory training for all personnel involved in procurement and fleet management on proper procedures, ethical standards and the consequences of non-compliance.
Enforce disciplinary measures for staff found to have circumvented procedures, up to and including termination and referral for criminal investigation where warranted.
Publish periodic fuel-use.
Public procurement and asset consumption, including fuel, are areas where robust controls must be beyond reproach.
