Renthia Kaimbi
The Central Procurement Board of Namibia (CPBN) is at the centre of a mounting controversy after it cancelled a N$127 million tender for the construction of veterinary cordon fences, only to immediately award the contract through an emergency procurement provision to a company that had failed to secure the bid through the open and competitive process.
Documents obtained by the Windhoek Observer reveal a series of events that anonymous sources are calling a “brutal” abuse of power, raising questions about transparency, fairness and the integrity of Namibia’s public procurement system.
The saga began on 22 June 2026, when the CPBN invited bids for the construction of 185 kilometres of veterinary cordon fences along the border with South Africa, which is a critical project aimed at protecting Namibia’s livestock industry from Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD).
The project, valued at an estimated N$123,416,724.94, covers 155 kilometres along the Orange River and a further 30 kilometres between the Klein Menasse and Mata Mata border posts in the //Kharas Region.
According to the executive summary of the bid report, 23 bids were received by the closing date of 14 July 2026.
Following an evaluation process, the CPBN issued a notice of selection for procurement award on 18 August 2026, naming China Jiangxi International (Namibia) (Pty) Ltd JV Homefin Properties CC as the successful bidder, with a contract price of N$126,373,500.07.
However, just days later, the process took an unexpected turn.
On 3 September 2026, the CPBN issued a notice of intention to cancel the bid, citing Section 54(1)(g) of the Public Procurement Act, which allows cancellation if the process “does not create or achieve the expected outcome”.
The procurement board gave all participating bidders just one day, until 4 September 2026, to submit written representations.
On Monday, the CPBN had formally cancelled the original bidding process, officially invoking the same section of the Procurement Act to justify its decision.
On the same day as the cancellation notice, the CPBN issued a notification of award to an entirely different company, Punchu Trading CC JV China State Construction Engineering Co. Southern Africa.
The new contract, awarded through an emergency procurement method under Section 33 of the Public Procurement Act, is valued at N$122,088,331.88, a figure sources say is remarkably close to the original estimated cost.
The beneficiary of the emergency award, Punchu Trading, was ranked behind China Jiangxi International in the original open bidding process.
By cancelling the bid and invoking emergency provisions, the CPBN allegedly effectively bypassed the competitive evaluation and allowed the process to start anew through what sources describe as a backdoor “direct” procurement.
This is not the first time emergency procurement provisions in Namibia have raised red flags.
Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) consistently warned that bypassing the CPBN on large projects risks corruption and wasted funds.
According to a 2020 report by the Procurement Policy Unit in the ministry of finance, there was evidence that government departments and entities were abusing emergency procurement provisions.
The report found that during the 2017/18 financial year, 125 individual emergency procurement transactions were conducted at a total cost of nearly N$350 million, adding that these projects were a “recipe for corruption”.
Research associate Frederico Links further stated that bypassing good practice and the institutions that govern public procurement is a recipe for waste and corruption.
Former finance minister Calle Schlettwein, who previously oversaw the public procurement system, also warned that bypassing the CPBN limited competition and reduced opportunities for local businesses, emphasizing that the procurement framework existed to ensure transparency, consistency, fairness, and value for money, and that those objectives were lost when the provisions are bypassed.
“Procurement is a regulatory framework which on the one hand regulates procurement across the whole public sector, I believe to ensure transparency, consistency and fairness, but also value for money. By bypassing the provisions of the CPBN, these objectives of the Act are lost,” Schlettwein previously said.
The awarding of the emergency contract to Punchu Trading is particularly noteworthy given the company’s history with procurement disputes.
In October 2025, the High Court reviewed a matter involving Punchu Trading CC and a tender for the construction of the Ohangwena Regional Council offices at Eenhana.
The case, Punchu Trading CC v Chairperson of the Review Panel, involved a protracted legal battle over the procurement process.
According to the judgment, Punchu Trading initially submitted a bid for the tender. On 24 January 2024, CPBN issued a notice for selection of an award to bidders, informing Punchu Trading that its bid had been unsuccessful.
Dissatisfied, the company submitted a reconsideration application, which was successful. This led to a revised notice for selection of an award on 8 April 2024, selecting Punchu Trading’s joint venture.
However, the process continued to shift.
On 25 June 2024, the board issued yet another revised notice, this time selecting a different bidder.
This triggered a review application before the Review Panel, which set aside the June 2024 notice and referred the matter back to the board.
Despite ongoing legal proceedings, CPBN issued a further revised notice on 31 October 2024, again declaring Punchu Trading unsuccessful.
The company subsequently obtained an urgent interdict to halt implementation of the award.
The judgment highlighted the contested and changing nature of procurement decisions involving Punchu Trading.
A source, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed shock at the decision.
“This is brutal corruption,” the source said. “They set up a process, evaluated it, selected a winner, then cancelled everything on a flimsy legal pretext to award it to a different company that couldn’t win fairly. The ‘emergency’ was created by their own decision to delay the process.”
Questions are now being raised about the “expected outcome” the CPBN claims it was trying to achieve.
Sources question if the goal was ultimately to award the cordon fence contract to Punchu Trading, why was the open bidding process conducted in the first place and what genuine emergency existed on Monday that did not exist on 3 September, when the CPBN initially awarded the tender to another company.
CPBN spokesperson Johanna Kambala previously stated that the procurement board is not the overseer of the implementation of the Public Procurement Act, noting that “this responsibility lies solely with the Public Procurement Policy” under the ministry of finance.
The Public Procurement Act provides mechanisms for oversight and accountability. Section 55(4A) allows unsuccessful bidders to apply for reconsideration within a seven-day standstill period.
However, in this case, the standstill period had already elapsed when the original notice of selection for procurement award was issued on 18 August.
The CPBN’s subsequent cancellation and re-award, source maintained, raise questions about how these protections apply when an awarded procurement process is later cancelled.
