An embassy-hosted investment forum is usually a carefully curated affair — high-profile, well-attended, and covered by a select group of journalists. Which is why a recent event left more than a few seasoned observers quietly shaking their heads.
Among the so-called “distinguished speakers” were two officials whose reputations, at least in procurement circles, are anything but distinguished. Industry insiders note that these individuals have long been associated with stalled project biddings — delays that allegedly surface after a vendor has already survived the exhaustive bids and awards committee process. More troubling, according to sources familiar with the matter, is that payments to legitimate winning vendors were also subsequently delayed.
In hushed asides, attendees jokingly dubbed the duo “partners in crime.”
The embassy, apparently unaware or insufficiently briefed, handed the two officials a microphone at a high-profile investment event, unintentionally laundering reputations through prestige.
Journalists in attendance exchanged glances. Some smiled politely. Others barely concealed their amusement as the speakers praised efficiency and transparency — their egos swelling under misplaced applause.
The room knew. The speakers did not. The takeaway should be obvious. Due diligence is not optional. Especially not when public funds are involved. Not when reform laws like ARTA exist. And certainly not when the Office of the Ombudsman has a mandate to ask uncomfortable questions.
As for the embassy, a gentle suggestion from the floor: Ask around. Listen beyond official briefings, and perhaps remind your people to step out of the ivory tower once in a while — lest diplomacy drift into unintentional farce.
Whether any of this will prompt quiet corrections, discreet inquiries, or continued denial remains an open question.
Cor blimey.