Renthia Kaimbi
The Central Procurement Board of Namibia (CPBN) has been accused of using the threat of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) as “scaremongering” to justify abandoning the competitive procurement process for the construction of a 185 kilometer veterinary cordon fence along Namibia’s southern border.
The dispute centres on CPBN’s decision to cancel the tender awarded to China Jiangxi International JV Homefin Properties CC (Homefin) and instead award the project to Punchu Trading CC JV China State Construction Engineering Co. Southern Africa (Punchu Trading) for N$122.08 million through emergency procurement.
The CPBN, however, rejected the suggestion that the FMD threat was exaggerated, saying the disease situation in neighbouring South Africa was deteriorating much faster than initially anticipated and that waiting for the ordinary procurement process to run its course would have left Namibia exposed.
According to CPBN chairperson Mary Shiimi’s answering affidavit filed in the High Court on Tuesday, the board was initially advised that there was an urgent need to construct the veterinary cordon fence along the South African border, but that an expedited competitive procurement process could still achieve the desired outcome.
The original tender, advertised in June and closed on 14 July 2026, attracted 23 bids for the construction of 185 kilometers of fencing, with 155 kilometers being along the Orange River and another 30 kilometers between the Klein Menasse and Mata Mata border posts in the //Kharas Region.
Following evaluation, Homefin was selected on 18 August at a contract price of N$126.37 million.
CPBN says the situation subsequently changed dramatically.
Shiimi says the ministry of agriculture, water and land reform informed the board during the reconsideration period that the FMD outbreak in South Africa was approaching Namibia significantly faster than initially anticipated.
The ministry reportedly provided the CPBN with maps showing the changing position of FMD-affected areas and their increasing proximity to Namibia.
The board was further advised that declining water levels in the Orange River had increased the possibility of livestock crossing the river, potentially weakening what had previously served as a natural barrier.
By September, CPBN says, the distance between the latest confirmed FMD cases and Namibia had fallen to about 65 kilometers.
The board argues that the 65-kilometer distance could not be treated as a reliable safety buffer because the location of confirmed cases may lag behind the actual movement of the virus.
It also says FMD can be mechanically transmitted through infected animals, animal products, people, vehicles, clothing, footwear and equipment.
The CPBN therefore argues that the threat was not theoretical, but had become an immediate veterinary and economic concern.
The ministry allegedly warned that an outbreak could have serious consequences for Namibia’s livestock sector and animal-product exports, including restrictions on the movement of livestock, suspension of auctions and additional costs associated with surveillance, vaccination, slaughter and compensation.
The board says the country’s ability to maintain access to premium export markets depends heavily on its animal-health status.
In light of this, CPBN says it concluded that continuing with the original tender process could take too long.
Three reconsideration applications had been lodged after Homefin’s selection, with the board saying at least one had sufficient merit to ordinarily require the matter to be referred back to the evaluation committee.
CPBN says such a process could potentially lead to further reconsideration, review proceedings and a High Court challenge.
At a meeting with agriculture ministry officials on 3 September, the ministry allegedly warned that further delays could result in the fence being completed too late to serve its intended veterinary purpose.
The CPBN subsequently issued a notice of its intention to cancel the competitive procurement process under section 54(1)(g) of the Public Procurement Act, citing its failure to “create or achieve the expected outcome”.
The board then moved towards emergency procurement under section 33 of the Act.
According to the affidavit, the emergency procurement process relied heavily on information already available from the 23 bids received during the original tender rather than starting an entirely new assessment.
The ministry advised that, as far as practicable, the emergency contractor should have participated in the original procurement process, be familiar with the site and its conditions, possess the necessary technical capacity and offer a competitive price.
In their urgent High Court application, Homefin alleged that personnel from Punchu Trading CC were on site as early as 5 September accompanied by CPBN board member, Immanuel Kambinda, while the emergency procurement contract was only formally cancelled and awarded to the joint venture on 7 September.
CPBN says Punchu Trading had participated in the original tender, had the required technical capacity and site familiarity and had submitted a raw bid of about N$122 million, approximately N$4.28 million below Homefin’s selected bid.
The board says awarding the contract to Punchu therefore also represented a saving of more than N$4 million to the state.
The decision has nevertheless been challenged by Homefin, which maintains that the alleged urgency surrounding FMD was being used to justify a decision that had already been made.
Homefin has questioned the cancellation of a tender that had already gone through a competitive evaluation process and resulted in its selection.
The timing of the cancellation and emergency award is also under scrutiny.
CPBN’s own affidavit acknowledges that Homefin submitted written representations against the proposed cancellation on 4 September, but that the representation was not considered before the emergency award because of an internal oversight.
Shiimi says the representation was only brought to her attention after the award had been made and that, upon considering it afterwards, she found no basis to reverse the decision.
The answering affidavit further states that Punchu Trading had attended a meeting with CPBN and ministry officials on 4 September to assess its readiness and ability to mobilise, but had not disclosed that it had itself submitted a representation against the proposed cancellation.
The CPBN said it only became aware of Punchu Trading’s representation on 7 September, after the emergency award had been made.
The board maintains that the emergency procurement was necessary because the contractor needed to be mobilised immediately and that the circumstances were “dire”.
Homefin is seeking an urgent temporary interdict preventing Punchu Trading from accepting the award, concluding the contract or implementing the works pending the determination of its procurement challenges.
The High Court matter is set down for hearing later today.
The CPBN is opposing Homefin’s urgent application and maintains that its decision was lawful, rational and driven by an emergency that required immediate action.
