Chiza and the kcu (1990) ltd

MUGANGUZI NKARAGE · 2013-02-01T09:32:17+00:00

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 wouldnt 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 cant 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 vehicles 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 Managers 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 works 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 wouldnt 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 Managers instruction. There are many other activities, particularly renovation ones, which have been carried out at exorbitant costs without the Boards 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 dont 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 Ministers response will either rescue the co-operative members or ditch them. prudencekarugendo@yahoo.com 0784 989 512

Thread starter MUGANGUZI NKARAGE
Start date Feb 1, 2013

MUGANGUZI NKARAGE

New Member

Feb 1, 2013

kabanga

JamiiForums uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

Accept Learn more…

Back

Top Bottom

Forums

New posts

Chiza and the kcu (1990) ltd

MUGANGUZI NKARAGE

New Member

kabanga

JF-Expert Member

Our Community

Regional Communities