Directives of the Top Leaders on Termination of Contracts

Dear forum members,
Any legal contract is formed by two parties (i.e Employer/client & contractor,service provider or Supplier) who can terminate the contract in case implementation is not conforming to terms and conditions of that contract. Please note that, Top leaders are part of public who seek to see public fund spent efficiently to bring to a community products/ services of right quality, quantity and delivered / completed at right time. In this context their directives to terminate a contract is very helpful to contract manager and Accounting Officer to revise their contract management status and make right decission (i.e to terminte or not). Therefore, let them continue alerting us when we forget our roles in public contract management.

Dear all,

This topic need to be discussed several times due to the frequency of its appearance in many places. Yes. political leaders have the role to speak and we as professionals in working place our role will be to translate what they speak if they fit into terms and conditions of the contracts we implement. You will come to realize (in many incidence) that what they are talking is a mere politics which does not fit into terms and conditions of the contracts.

But there are some of the projects whose implementations are hindered by the acts of contractors, consultants or client. If we , in procuring entities fails to implement our part, then political leaders have the right to speak----and we have the role to act positively.



SJA Junior

Esteemed Forum Members

To me I think Political Leaders have a role to play - and that is to see that contracts within their juridisction are well implemented. So if they see anything going wrong they have the right to speak up, but not to terminate contracts without following the set procedures either in the contract itself or as required under the Law of Contract.

I think there is a duty to educate them what they need to do if they find that contracts are not well implemented.

The experience at home is an ORDER VERBALLY issued in presence of the PRESS without further WRITTEN COMMITMENTS, by a Honourable Minister or Regional Comissioner or District Commissioner for termination of contract for delay,quality or any other reason.
With profound respects,the order is for political,malicious, and sometimes for cheap popularity purposes!These orders may sometimes go hand in hand with staff termination orders-with no due regard to existing public service employment regulations- which abounds and for which I MAY BET EXPERTS ABOUND IN THE TANZANIAN PUBLIC SERVICE CONTEXT!
The problem with the average professional is in implementation of the orders. May analogy may not sound better but no one expect a doctor to administer a wrong dose because he/she has received orders from HONOURABLE WHATEVER!
Am just adding insult to injury by saying that may be we are as well after cheap popularity when we implement orders, many a times never written and many a times denied by the issuers of the same, WITHOUT CONSULTATION ON THE ECONOMIC LEGAL AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS OF TERMINATING A CONTRACT THAT IS LEGALLY BINDING!And the popularity is indeed cheap,for when the defining moment arises we are the ones to be sacrificed!

Those directives are very political and non legal. In the majority of cases, termination of that nature results into very big liability. Every contract has exit clauses and every exit has to comply to the clause.

to my knowledge the top leaders do that to please the public, but at the end of the day the contract manager/project manager has to sit down and look if there are contractial reason to act on the decision. there is no clause giving thr 'top leaders' authority.

if they act on the decision without following contractual procedures then they will/may face contractual claims from the contractor.