 This is my assessment of what that nola dual-carriage way means. Number one, we need to understand that in every contract there are two sides. Particularly this one, there is a public being government of the Republic of Zambia and there is a private partner being the macro-ocean investment consortium. Which, and I want you to quote this, which includes NAPSA and Weka's Compensation Fund as part of the macro-ocean investment consortium. Why is because NAPSA and Weka's Compositions are the financiers of this deal. So they are part and parcel of the macro-ocean investment by that of being the financiers of this deal. NAPSA and Weka's Compositions are government entities. They are government entities. Meaning that in case there is a conflict, there is failure for instance on the part of macro-oceans to deliver the road to the expectations as prescribed in the contract specifications. Government will not be able to hold macro-oceans to task because if they for instance take macro-oceans to court, government will essentially be taking itself to court because NAPSA and Weka's Compositions which are the financiers of this deal are government. So meaning that government cannot sue itself. That's a serious anomaly and it raises very serious questions about how government will ensure that macro-oceans deliver the contract to its specifications. Number two, if you read the statement of the Minister of Infrastructure Honourable Menopi in close 10 of his statement, the Minister states that the contract was awarded at an exorbitant price of 1.2 billion US dollars and this is in comparison with the contract sum of 649,967 dollars. The Minister says it was awarded at 1.2 billion by the previous regime and that they have reduced it to 649 million. Can the Minister confirm what has necessitated this reduction? Is it because the scope of the Weka has also been reduced because the Minister cannot argue today that they have reduced the price by half and they want to save money if the scope is still the same? Because actually the cost of doing that road now has doubled if you look at the exchange rate and if you look at the cost of all materials, if you look at the cost of transport, the cost of machinery, the cost of cement, the cost of asphalt, the cost of all materials that are needed to build that road, the prices of all these materials have gone up. So when he says that the contract sum has been reduced from 1.2 billion to 649 billion. Can the Minister also be honest enough to tell the Zambian people that they have also reduced the scope of the Weka? They have reduced the scope of the Weka and can they tell us what they have removed? Can they give the Zambian people the BOQs of the so called 1.2 billion dollars and the BOQs of the so called 649 so we can do compare and contrast? If the Minister claims that there was corruption when the price was pegged at 1.2 billion because the scope according to him remains the same, then why has the contract been given to the same contractor who had pegged it at 1.2 billion? Why give it to the same contractor if at all the price of 1.2 billion was exorbitant looking at the scope of the Weka? Why have you awarded the contract to the same contractor who in the first place according to your own submission wanted to steal over 600 million dollars from the Zambian people? Number three, the Minister in a statement if you read clause 42, this is what the Minister said and I want to quote, besides that NAPSA are not the only ones likely to be approached for possible investment in the project, they are just part of the possible funders. Now listen to this again and I quote this is the Minister's statement go to clause 42, he says NAPSA are not the only ones likely to be approached for possible investment meaning that NAPSA has not agreed there's no contract yet, there's no agreement yet because the Minister himself in his own way says NAPSA are not the ones who are likely to be approached for a possible investment in the project so can the Minister tell the Zambian people the truth have they signed the contract with NAPSA or they have not yet signed the contract with NAPSA because clause 42 of his one statement says that NAPSA might not be the only one they will approach and that NAPSA might possibly be one of the funders now this shows that NAPSA has not yet committed to funding this project in the absence of a conclusive arrangement what criteria was used to pick the questionnaire and how then did government proceed to sign a contract with the questionnaire before concluding the funding arrangement and funding agreements with NAPSA these questions must be explained to the Zambian people I went further, no I'm talking about what the Minister said in parliament and the Zambian people must know and this is where you can see that we are dealing with the government of dealers and here is where the deal comes in if you go to clause 49 of the deal this is what the Minister says we are guided by the total revenue over the concession period by the government total gross revenue of $432 million and using an average of 10% as stated in clause 48 of the Minister's own statement that is about it ranges from 1.5% to 15% the concessionaire will collect a total of $4.3 billion the concessionaire will collect $4.3 billion now do the simple maths after the deduction of this envisaged accrual to government this is how the breakdown will be $1.1 billion will be repayment of the loan and financiers of approximately financiers will get $1 billion including interest rates we are being very fair we are including interest rates and everything and I will go back slowly so that we are on the same page so the money after the project is done is expected to be done in 3 years and expected to collect the tofis for the next 22 years the concessionaire will get $4.3 billion if you do the refining the refinancing or paying back of the debt to Napsa with interest rates it will come to $1.1 billion save $1.1 billion ok let's add the maintenance the maintenance work you can put it at $1 billion and the future maintenance costs approximately maybe $300 million will have will leave the gross revenue accrued to the concessionaire a total of $1.8 billion so concessionaire akachosamon drama zonse abapaswa government $1.1 billion repayment of the loans to the financiers abapaswa $1 billion approximated interest rates abapasa $300 million approximated maintenance rate the concessionaire will walk away with $1.8 billion you know what this represent? 289% profit that is the money that the Chinese who have been given this contract to make $1.8 billion representing 289% of the total investment now let's ask ourselves questions that's first of all this makes sense that we can use our own money our own money give it to macro oceans macro oceans build the road after 3 years they walk away with a profit of $1.8 billion from the toffees it doesn't make sense so what is motivating the government to go on this deal the no more decent thing to do for government was simple napsa is not a bank all the projects napsas done they will finance and own if you go to kwa chazanga they have a complex they financed it and they own it if you go to levy park they finance and they own if you go to zamiashio building society they finance and they own that's how they get their money why didn't we say napsa finance the project pay for the cost of building the road and then recover your money using toffees so that the $1.8 billion that is going to go out of this country could have gone back to napsa what is the motivation then the motivation is simple they are using this deal the idea is 1.8 billion so while we are fighting each other over 1.8 billion 1.8 billion and lastly if you go to close 35 in the minister's statement the minister emphasised that there was no requirement for a sovereign guarantee money sourced locally is guarantee enough ma minister wants us to believe that these are geniuses we are dealing with smart guys we have nothing to negotiate in terms of a sovereign guarantee because napsa money is public money is government money it is a sovereign guarantee on its own so this whole project first of all from the financial point of view doesn't make sense