THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BILL NEEDS BETTER ENFORCEMENT: A SUGGESTED PROVISION TO EMPOWER AND INCENTIVISE WHISTLE-BLOWERS
Abstract
Among other reforms, South African public procurement law needs increased enforcement. The current draft Bill proposes some enforcement measures including a new Public Procurement Tribunal with adjudicative powers. We argue the draft Bill should be amended to empower and incentivise whistle-blowers through a qui tam mechanism. In this anti-fraud mechanism, government is afforded an opportunity to take up or intervene in the public interest in private claims lodged by whistleblowers, often with the assistance of law firms. We propose a draft statutory provision. To implement this mechanism, the necessary element of public sector oversight would need to be exercised either by the National Prosecuting Authority or by a legal unit within the draft Bill’s proposed Public Procurement Regulator. The adoption of this public/private enforcement power in developing countries aligns with calibrated and effective regulatory power. While the efficacy of this mechanism should always be compared with that of alternatives, providing for enforcement in part through a tailored whistleblowing provision appears to be the best available alternative in the South African context. In South Africa, inserting a qui tam provision into public procurement law will take pressure off under-capacitated investigators and prosecutors and will recover to the fiscus at least some portion of the ill-gotten gains of procurement fraudsters.References
Literature
Andiva, B. & Masereti, E. 2019. Cartel Enforcement: Adoption of a Leniency Programme in Kenya. In Klaaren, J., Roberts, S. & Valodia, I. (Eds.). Competition and Regulation for Inclusive Growth in Southern Africa. Johannesburg: Jacana.
Braithwaite, J. 2008. Regulatory Capitalism: How It Works, Ideas for Making It Work Better. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Braithwaite, J. 2013. Flipping Markets to Virtue with Qui Tam and Restorative Justice. Accounting, Organizations and Society 38(6–7): 458–468.
Brunette, R., Klaaren, J. & Nqaba, P. 2019. Reform in the Contract State: Embedded Directions in Public Procurement Regulation in South Africa. Development Southern Africa 36(4): 537–554.
Brunette, R. & Klaaren, J. 2020. Position Paper on Reform in Public Procurement in South Africa. Johannesburg: Public Affairs Research Institute.
Department of Justice (United States). 2016. The False Claims Act: A Primer. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/civil/legacy/2011/04/22/C-FRAUDS_FCA_Primer.pdf (Accessed 20-04-2020).
Engstrom, D.F. 2012. Harnessing the Private Attorney General: Evidence from Qui Tam Litigation. Columbia Law Review 112(6): 1244–1325.
Kovacic, W.E. 1995/1996. Whistleblower Bounty Lawsuits as Monitoring Devices in Government Contracting. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 29(4): 1799–1858.
Marcus, A. 2014. Broadening the Range of Incentives to Combat Corruption in South Africa (New York Law School).
McCrudden, C. 2009. Social Policy Choices and the International and National Law of Government Procurement: South Africa as a Case Study. Acta Juridica 9: 123–167.
Meador. P. & Warren, E.S. 1997/1998. The False Claims Act: A Civil War Relic Evolves into a Modern Weapon. Tennessee Law Review 65(2): 455–484.
Moodaliyar, K. 2008. Are Cartels Skating on Thin Ice: An Insight into the South African Corporate Leniency Policy. South African Law Journal 125(1): 157–177.
Quinot, G. 2014. An Institutional Legal Structure for Regulating Public Procurement in South Africa. http://africanprocurementlaw.org/ocporeport/ (Accessed 20-04-2020).
Stephenson, M.C. 2005. Public Regulation of Private Enforcement: The Case for Expanding the Role of Administrative Agencies. Virginia Law Review 91(1): 93–173.
Legislation
Draft Public Procurement Bill, 2020 http://africanprocurementlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Public-Procurement-Bill-for-public-comment-19-Feb-2020.pdf (Accessed 20-04-2020)
Competition Act 89 of 1998
Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000
Case law
Fose v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC).
Trustees for the time being of Children’s Resource Centre Trust and Others v Pioneer Food (Pty) Ltd and Others 2013 (2) SA 213 (SCA)
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
