The dawn of the new constitutional order in 2013. For the first time in the nation’s history, procurement was elevated to a constitutional status under Section 315 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 20), which mandates that a comprehensive procurement system be established by an Act of Parliament.
This constitutional imperative led to the enactment of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDPA) Act [Chapter 22:23] in 2017, which came into full force on January 1, 2018. The Act effectively repealed the old Procurement Act of 1999 and represented a paradigm shift from discretionary administrative processes to a rules-based framework anchored in transparency, accountability, and value for money.
At the heart of this framework lie core legal principles designed not only to guide administrative action but to rebuild public trust, combat corruption, and leverage public resources for sustainable economic development.
Principles of public procurement
The functional objectives of the PPDPA Act are explicitly outlined in its provisions mandating that all procurement and asset disposal be conducted in a manner that is “transparent, fair, honest, cost-effective and competitive”. Transparency is arguably the linchpin of the entire system.
This principle requires that procurement processes be open to public scrutiny, generally necessitating the publication of bid notices in the Gazette or on the Procurement Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (Praz) portal to reach the widest possible audience of potential bidders.
Keep Reading
- Combating corruption in public procurement
- Beitbridge border post ‘dumps’ Zimdollar
- Praz red flags procurement loopholes
- Time to decolinise procurement processes
However, the practical application of transparency has faced legal scrutiny. Notably, General Notice 635 of 2023, issued by the President, sought to shield a wide array of procurement including medicines, biomedical equipment, and vehicles from public disclosure by invoking vague “national interest” clauses. Legal analysts have argued that this notice is ultra vires the Act, as the President’s power to exempt “construction works” from disclosure does not extend to goods like pharmaceuticals, raising significant concerns about backsliding into opaque governance, particularly in the sensitive health sector where past corruption allegations have been rife.
Fairness
Closely linked to transparency is the principle of fairness, which mandates the equitable treatment of all bidders.
The Act seeks to eliminate favoritism and nepotism by requiring that evaluation criteria be disclosed in advance and applied uniformly to all submitted bids. This principle ensures that the market is open and that all qualified suppliers, regardless of political connection, have a reasonable opportunity to compete for state contracts.
The fairness doctrine is further reinforced by the rules governing competitive bidding; procuring entities are required to prioritise competitive methods over direct negotiations to prevent the manipulation of contract awards. This commitment to procedural justice is intended to foster public confidence that the state acts as an impartial and responsible contracting partner.
Value for money and cost-effectiveness
Beyond procedural rectitude, the PPDPA Act places a substantial premium on “value for money” and “cost-effectiveness”. This principle moves beyond merely selecting the lowest-priced bid.
Instead, it requires procuring entities to evaluate bids based on the optimum balance of quality, technical criteria, lifecycle costs, and price. As the nation moves toward the National Development Strategy Two (NDS2), officials have stressed that assessments must ensure that every dollar spent yields the maximum possible public benefit.
This is particularly crucial in infrastructure development, where long-term maintenance costs and durability are as important as initial construction expenses.
However, this principle has recently come under strain due to macroeconomic policy interventions. For instance, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe’s directive requiring exclusive payment of public contractors in the local currency (ZiG) has raised questions about the sanctity of existing contracts.
Legal commentators have noted that unilaterally altering the currency of payment for ongoing projects, which were priced based on foreign currency models, may undermine the cost-effectiveness of those deals and potentially violate the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept), thereby destabilizing the very certainty required for fair competition.
Competition and integrity in bidding
To achieve these objectives, the Act codifies specific procurement methods, including competitive bidding, restrictive bidding, and, in limited circumstances, requests for quotations. The paramountcy of competition serves a dual purpose; it drives down prices through market rivalry and stimulates innovation.
Praz established under the Act as the central regulator, is tasked with setting standards and issuing standardized bidding documents to ensure uniformity and compliance across all procuring entity.
Furthermore, the Act contains robust provisions regarding integrity and the exclusion of corrupt actors. The Debarment Committee, operating under the Praz framework as provided in Debarment Proceedings in Section 72, read with Section 99,which allows for the suspension or permanent debarment of bidders who fail to meet ethical standards.
Praz recommends sanctions against bidders or contractors who engage in fraudulent or corrupt practices, thereby barring them from future public contracts. This mechanism serves as a crucial deterrent, signaling that violations of procurement law carry severe professional and financial consequences.
Dispute resolution and the rule of law
No legal framework is complete without a mechanism to resolve conflicts.
The PPDPA Act and its associated General Regulations of 2018 provide for a structured dispute resolution process. Section 73 of PPDPA provides for the challenging of procurement proceeding and it outlines the initial process for a bidder to challenge a decision directly with the procuring entity which is same provided in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Mode law).
This legal architecture ensures that the interpretation of procurement contracts including framework agreements is subject to the rule of law, protecting both the state and suppliers from arbitrary administrative decisions.