Treasury is perpetuating fraud on taxpayers.

The Passat replacement scheme is uneconomical and could facilitate the outright theft of public resources.

Apart from the obvious blatant contempt for procurement procedures involving single sourcing by government in its latest vehicle policy scheme, a little known Treasury press statement of December 2008 and missing information in the subsequent 2009 National Budget suggests Kenyan taxpayers should be very concerned.

On December 14,2008, the Nation published a story titled " Public vehicles on sale at throw away prices" stating that about 2,000 government vehicles earmarked for sale under a reformed transport system were being sold off at incredibly low prices - as little as Sh500 in some cases. Many vehicles were bought by well-connected individuals and companies through questionable deals.

The cars were being auctioned in line with a transport policy announced by the then Finance minister Amos Kimunya during the 2006 Budget speech. The sale was expected to save the Treasury about Sh1.3 billion yearly in fuel and maintenance costs.

In a press statement, the Financial Secretary immediately retorted, "Nothing could be further from the truth" than the Nation story.

The Financial Secretary stated that Treasury records indicated that by then only 488 vehicles had been sold through open tender rather than the 1,210 stated in the Nation.

According to the Financial Secretary, the sale had realised a total of Sh194,061,335 which had already been paid to the Exchequer.

The same official stated that another 811 vehicles were advertised for sale which had closed on November 25, 2008 and were awaiting tender awards. Finally, the official claimed that a further 789 vehicles were under the process of being sold and advertisements were due in early January 2009.

In total by December 2008, the Treasury had collected 2,088 vehicles from various ministries and departments. According to the Treasury, the process of surrender would continue until all 2,213 targeted vehicles were accounted for.

The reason for the surrender of the vehicles in 2008 was the very same as that behind the 2009 surrender scheme.

During the presentation of the 2008 Financial Year Budget Statement, the Minister for Finance announced the introduction of a new transport policy to address weaknesses in the existing transport policy.

When he presented his budget for the financial year 2009/2010, the new Finance minister Uhuru Kenyatta disclosed the following as monies received from sale of motor vehicles for the year 2008/2009. Receipts from the sale of vehicles and transport equipment indicated Sh14,069,080

Receipts from the sale of vehicles and transport equipment were Sh756,000.

What happened to all the money raised by the Treasury from its reported sale of 2,213 motor vehicles surrendered? What happened to the Sh194,061,335 that Treasury claimed to have received for 488 cars? What about the money from the sale of the other cars?

Uhuru was also required to indicate in his estimates for financial year 2009/2010 the amount he would raise from the sale of unneeded or surrendered cars.

He told Parliament that he expected during this financial year Sh15,384,640 and Sh1,726,000 paid to the Exchequer. Where are the savings from the 120 Passats? Is this not yet another Government con?

The total expenditure on cars in 2008/9 was Sh8,253,566,848 and in 2009/10 it is expected to be Sh8,013,271,106. The income from the sale of cars in 2008/9 was Sh14,825,080 and in 2009/10 it is expected to be Sh17,110,640.

The current Passat controversy revolves also around the Treasury's unusual decision to procure without any competition 120 VW Passats from CMC Holding.

This company features in the external debt register as having lent the government $24.2 million for the purchase of 522 Land Rovers for the Office of the President in June 2003 without Parliamentary approval.

Later the debt was collected on by Standard Bank London.

These prior dealings with CMC should have made Treasury even more scrupulous in following the Public Procurement laws to the letter.

Is this Passat deal going to blow up in our faces in the future in the Anglo-Leasing vein?

Will a debt show up on the External Public Debt Register in the future?

We insist that the external debt register be tabled in Parliament immediately so that we know what the government has borrowed and paid on our behalf.

Treasury was asked for the document by Parliament on June 3 and to date has refused to table it for scrutiny.

Mwalimu Mati is the CEO, Mars Group.

I have followed keenly Finance minister Uhuru Kenyatta's budget proposal on cost cutting through the populist plan to replace the official cars with the Volkswagen Passat and the 1800cc Mercedez Benz.

To be fair to Uhuru, the idea of cheaper transport for state officials did not originate with him; his predecessor Amos Kimunya had staged the same public stunt of state frugality and caused a few limousines and 4x4s to be hauled to the yard in Industrial Area.

Only the Ministry of Finance, however, knows what became of those vehicles and how successful that prank of a policy was.

My hunch is that if a thorough audit is conducted, it will find that only a few cars can be accounted for and the disposal of the rest is a mystery.

In the present case, too many questions are begging for answers about the directive and how the government has gone about it. We cannot overlook some things these days and even if Uhuru wants to yank everyone to court, we must raise the queries as a matter of public interest.

First, the directive seems to be yet another cosmetic measure from government. I give it to you who believes in haba na haba hujaza kibaba and that small savings here and there will ultimately amount to a leaner, less costlier government.

But 42 cars and the cost of running them has been shown, even by ministry estimates, to be just a token in government expenditure. While we must avoid state profligacy, public service should not be made to appear like a charity.

Government has to offer employment perks that compete with the private sector to attract the best talents. Public service is not all about sacrifice, poor pay and other adversities. If the government, or the taxpayer in this case, cannot afford or provide good cars for its workers, it should initiate optional schemes for its officers to take out cars.

Government officials who want a little class should be allowed their luxury by being allowed to gradually own their preferred cars at a subsidised cost through a phased ownership scheme. After all, isn't that the trend in the private sector?

It is fashionable for the media to demand certain sacrifices from public servants because that is politically correct. Yet if you flip the coin, the same critics enjoy the same privileges in their work places. Isn't it time for a paradigm or mentality shift?

But the Uhuru directive is also hypocritical. It is not ministers alone who use expensive cars. If he is serious about a new official transport policy, then he should go further and include all the state corporations and agencies that are fleecing the taxpayer.

How about the armed forces, where all senior officers have a fleet of limousines at their beck and call. Is Uhuru saying that a minister in the government is lower in rank to a brigadier in the Kenya Army, whose official car is a Mercedes and several others?

Has he not seen those chief executives of parastatals drive huge 4x4s and other sleek cars?

Then there is the matter of how the directive has been implemented. For such a pronounced policy, the details of how the car make was arrived at should not be so difficult to find.

I have several times heard the minister parry questions about his connection to CMC, the dealers and suppliers of the VW Passat. It may be that the facts bear him out but why not publish them?

It is not the first time that questions are being raised about vehicle procurement.

Previous queries about imports have always been vindicated.

When Duncan Wachira was Police Commissioner, he procured against all advice the unsuitable Mahindra for the police. The funny cars were useless for police chase. We have heard about the accident-prone Chinese trucks controversially acquired by the army, which have been killing our soldiers.

The truth is, there can be no fit-all vehicle for the government because of different needs.

To say that ministers or government officials, who have to traverse the breadth of the country, in some places where roads are non-existent, will be limited to using the low-clearance Passat is a lie that can't pass. It will sooner rather than later prove more expensive when the cars fall into disrepair.

I have no brief from the manufacturers but I think the Mercedes Benz is just fine for our government officials. In Europe and Germany, the home country, they are used as a common taxi and the prestige that we accord them here is quite frankly exaggerated.

The government must aim to balance frugality with a realistic mix of prestige, comfort and safety for our public servants.

This straight-jacket directive is suspect.

Makali is a media consultant.