NAPSA: We Weren’t Forced to Fund Lusaka-Ndola Road

BUSINESS

By Mwebantu — Mwebantu

NAPSA: We Weren’t Forced to Fund Lusaka-Ndola Road
LUSAKA – The National Pension Scheme Authority (NAPSA) has moved to dispel widespread speculation and claims suggesting government undue influence in its decision to commit $300 million towards the construction of the vital Lusaka-Ndola dual carriageway. In a statement released today, NAPSA officials underscored that the investment was a strategic, independent decision, meticulously evaluated and approved under stringent internal guidelines designed to safeguard and grow pension funds. The Lusaka-Ndola dual carriageway project is a cornerstone of Zambia's infrastructure development agenda, aimed at decongesting traffic, improving road safety, and significantly boosting economic activity along one of the country's most crucial trade arteries. The road connects the capital, Lusaka, to the Copperbelt Province, the heartland of Zambia's mining industry and a key economic hub. Previous attempts to finance and execute the project have faced challenges, including controversies surrounding concession agreements and funding models, making the current approach under a public-private partnership (PPP) model, with NAPSA's involvement, a subject of intense public interest. NAPSA's participation in such a large-scale infrastructure project is not unprecedented, as the authority has a mandate to invest its members' contributions in ventures that offer both financial returns and contribute to national development. However, the sheer scale of the $300 million commitment has naturally invited questions about the independence of its decision-making process, particularly given the government's expressed urgency in completing the road. NAPSA maintains that its investment committee rigorously assessed the project's viability, potential returns, and risk profile, concluding that it represents a sound long-term investment for its contributors. Critics and some independent media outlets have previously raised concerns about the potential for government to leverage state-owned entities, i