a$.$ The decision to pay Tsogo Developers R$22$ million despite the non$-$completion of work raises both financial and ethical implications. From a financial perspective, the payment was made despite the fact that the project had not been completed, which could have resulted in a loss of funds for the department. Additionally, the payment could have been used for other purposes that would have been more beneficial to the department. From an ethical standpoint, the decision to pay the developer despite the lack of completion could be seen as a breach of trust and a misuse of public funds.

b$.$ A more structured validation and control of project scope, along with rigorous schedule performance measurements, could have influenced the financial management decisions in the project in several ways. Firstly, a more structured approach to scope and schedule management would have allowed for better tracking of the project's progress and identification of any potential issues early on$.$ This would have enabled the departments involved to make more informed decisions about whether to continue paying the developer and when to expect completion of the project. Secondly, a rigorous schedule performance measurement system would have allowed for better monitoring of the developer's progress and identification of any delays or issues that could have been addressed in a timely manner. This would have helped to ensure that the project was completed on time and within budget. Finally, a structured approach to scope and schedule management would have allowed for better communication and collaboration between the departments involved, which could have helped to avoid misunderstandings and ensure that everyone was working towards the same goals.

c$.$ An alternative approach that could have been taken to manage the financial risk and ensure more accountable use of funds in this project could involve the implementation of a more robust project management framework. This could include the establishment of a project management office $($PMO$)$ that would be responsible for overseeing the project's scope, schedule, and budget, as well as providing regular reporting and auditing of the project's progress. The PMO could also be responsible for conducting regular risk assessments of the project and implementing risk mitigation strategies as needed. Additionally, the project could have been divided into smaller, more manageable phases, with each phase being completed before moving on to the next. This would have allowed for better tracking of progress and identification of any issues early on$,$ which could have helped to avoid the situation where the project was left unfinished due to the developer's inability to complete it$.$ Finally, the project could have been subject to regular audits and reviews to ensure that the funds were being used in the most effective and efficient manner possible.