The COMESA Competition Commission must urgently launch a vigorous and unrestrained cartel investigation and simultaneously conduct lawful multiple large-scale dawn-raids operations at PwC offices and any other critical facilities, said Dr. Kelvin KAMAYOYO, Zambian economist and researcher.
The COMESA Competition Commission is a regional body that promotes competition and protects consumers within the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) by, inter alia, monitoring anti-competitive practices, reviewing mergers, and enforcing consumer protection laws. The regional body also ensures fair trade practices, facilitates economic integration, and has powers to conduct “dawn raids” and investigations across member states.
On March 18, 2026, the World Bank Group announced a 21-month debarment of three PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) affiliates in Africa – PwC Associates Africa Ltd (Mauritius), PwC Kenya, and PwC Rwanda – due to “collusive and fraudulent practices”. The sanction, which runs from March 17, 2026, to December 16, 2027, stems from misconduct involving major World Bank-funded power projects in Ethiopia.
“The contracts were part of the Eastern Africa Power Integration Program, specifically the Ethiopian Electricity Highway Project, which was designed to increase electricity supply in Kenya and generate revenue for Ethiopia through the export of power.”
The World Bank has banned PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) firms in Kenya, Rwanda, and Mauritius from participating in bank-funded projects for 21 months after they were found guilty of collusion and fraudulent practices.
“This is a serious offense in Antitrust law and should never be washed away like this because cartels or collusion is a very serious crime and limits benefits of competition such as choice and quality, erodes consumer and national welfare and compromises quality of service delivered.”
Suffice it to note that the Antitrust law was first enacted in America through the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, designed to stop agreements that prevented competition and combat monopolies, trusts, and restraints on trade. Further, in 1914, the Clayton Act was enacted to strengthen the Sherman Act and address specific practices like mergers and price discrimination.
However, in Africa, specifically under the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), it was only in 2004, when the COMESA Competition Regulations and Competition Rules were adopted to prohibit anti-competitive practices within the region, which included prohibition of collusive behavior and cartels in business transactions.
Although the COMESA Competition and Consumer Commission is one of the institutions of the Common Market, it only became operational in January 2013. The Commission is an autonomous institution that enjoys international legal personality and possesses, in the territory of each Member State, the legal capacity required for the performance of its functions under the COMESA Treaty.
Given this unrestrained enforcement ambit, the Commission has every reason and territorial legal right in Kenya, Rwanda, and Mauritius to institute a cartel investigation in this matter and also sanction them for limiting competition through collusive behavior and misrepresentation.
At the moment, the sanctions meted out to PwC Associates in Kenya, Rwanda, and Mauritius are inadequate and non-deterrent compared to the material injury the conduct inflicts on the reputation of global corporate governance systems and the continent of Africa in general. In other words, this kind of leniency effected by the World Bank to the PwC Associates is ineffective, and also weakens their own institutional corporate governance index of strength and adherence.
Arguably, the World Bank should never have “covered a warm blanket of leniency” to all these offenders without imposing a stiffer punishment on one of them, especially the ring leader(s) in the cartel.
Notwithstanding, this is a serious wake-up call that anti-competitive and fraud practices should be fought vigorously in every sector and everywhere because the ordinary citizens are the ones that end up suffering the most.
At national jurisdictions, respectively, imposing debarment as a risk-based measure to disqualify PwC Associates from participating in World Bank projects is not sufficient, but national competition authorities and other agencies must institute own investigations and make determination because these subsidiaries are domestically incorporated.
For instance, the Mauritius Competition Commission, Rwanda Competition Authority, and Competition Authority of Kenya should take keen interest in this cartel and investigate further, especially since “culpability” has been established as per the suspects’ own admission.
Going forward, the COMESA Competition Commission, headquartered in Lilongwe, Malawi, should not turn a blind eye to this offense but immediately institute a robust inquiry or investigation into the occurrences and make a determination accordingly.
Additionally, the World Bank sanctions system needs to undergo rigorous reforms by repealing the long-term accountability principle and allowing national investigative wings on corruption and anti-competitive conduct to intervene and carry out their own mandates.
The World Bank sanctions system was established in 2007 to combat fraud, collusion, and corruption in its projects by primarily imposing debarment. However, according to the World Bank report, over 224 sanctions were reported between 2007 and 2013. And more recently, in 2024, the World Bank debarred EY Kenya for 2.5 years for failure to disclose a conflict of interest and Ernst & Young Kenya for debarment fraudulent practices in Somalia, including an individual who was also debarred for 43 months for fraud in a Laos nutrition project.
The World Bank sanctions system of debarment is not effective in its current framework because justice is often delayed and targeting becomes academic.
Cross-Debarment must be embraced by the private sector and other multilateral organizations operating in Africa, on this case involving the three PwC Associates. This is because “collusion or horizontal agreements and misrepresentation practices are not good ethical business strategies to remain competitive in any market or during the course of conducting business transactions”.
The World Bank must endeavour to collaborate with other multilateral development banks such as African Development Bank to ensure that PwC Associates debarred are restricted across all institutions and countries.
Further, the World Bank’s history regarding procurement-related arrests involves investigations by its Integrity Vice Presidency (INT), which frequently refers cases to national law enforcement agencies, particularly cases focusing on fraud, collusion, and corruption in bank-financed projects, leading to the debarment of companies and, in some cases, the prosecution of officials.
Examples are there to cite, but one single case to mention for illustration purposes is the Padma Multipurpose Bridge (Bangladesh – 2012) case in which the World Bank cancelled a $2.9 billion loan due to evidence of a conspiracy involving senior government officials and participating bidders. The investigation was referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), leading to the arrest and charging of former SNC-Lavalin employees.
The continent of Africa must rise up in the fight against corruption, fraud, and anti-competitive practices using all the necessary tools that correctly defines integrity, transparency, accountability, and professionalism because these vices erode national development and perpetuate poverty in society.
For comments contact the researcher on email: kamayoyokm@gmail.com
