• Move will institutionalize corruption in procurement process – Stakeholders.
By Umar Duguri
The executive and legislative arms of government in Adamawa State are working strenuously to change the procurement laws in a covert move to make procurement processes opaque, susceptible and amenable to corruption this paper has learnt.
Sources privy to the development confided in our reporter that the move which will empower the governor with the powers to make the board chairman the chief executive officer (CEO) of the procurement agency and create 3 non-ex officio board members will make the organization to loss the ability of self regulation and censorship which is vital for checkmating corruption, and misappropriation of public resources.
Documentary evidence indicated that the new onslaught on the procurement laws in the state is being pursued through the repeal of sections 3, 9 and 10 of the law meant to neutralize the oversight functions and make procurement processes a one man show.
Section 3 sub section 5 of the Adamawa State public procurement law 2020 as amended stipulated that all members of the Board other than the Director General shall be appointed on part time basis.
Section 3 sub-section (6) stipulated that the chairman shall be a person with proven integrity, relevant educational qualification and experience in procurement related discipline.
Section 9 sub-section (2)(a) of the principal law 2020 as amended: the chief executive and accounting officer of the bureau.
Section 10 sub-section (2)(a) of the principal Law 2020, as amended: Assisting the Director General in the day to day operations of the Bureau.
In the proposed amendment bill seen by our reporter, section 3 subsection 5 will be amended thus; section 3 sub-section (5) all members of the Board other than the chairman, 3 non-ex-officio members and the Director General shall be appointed on part time basis.
In the proposed law, section 9 of the principal law will be amended by deleting sub-section (2)(a) and replacing it with new sub-section: The Director General shall be the accounting officer of the Bureau.
In the same vein, the proposed amendment in section 10 of the principal Law, 2020 will be achieved by deleting sub-section (4)(a) and replacing it with new sub-section: Assisting in the day to day operations of the Bureau.
According to a position paper presented to the chairman house committee on finance and appropriation by the DG of the bureau Mr. Joseph Markus on Feb 17, 2025, seen by our reporter, the BPP in unambiguous language said the proposed amendment will kill due process, transparency, accountability and introduce sharp practices in procurement processes in the state.
The DG noted “it is important to put on record that the Adamawa State Bureau of Public Procurement, was established on two layers i.e. The Adamawa State Board on Public Procurement whose mandate is to formulate policies as well as carry out oversight functions on the day to day operations of the Bureau.
“The Chairman and members of the board, with the exception of the Director General who serve as the Accounting Officer, are to be appointed on part time basis.
“The second layer is the Adamawa State Bureau of Public Procurement (ADSBPP), which is the implementing Agency of all the policies/resolutions initiated by the Board, this very particular layer of the Bureau, is headed by the Director General who is also the Chief Executive Officer. Both, the Chairman/Board Members and the Director General/CEO as well as the Principal Officers of the Bureau, have defined roles that are unambiguous, apt and specific for the day to day operations of the Bureau as encapsulated in the Adamawa State Public Procurement Law, 2020 as amended.”
The DG also refused to endorsed all the amendments proposed by the state house of assembly noting that the office of the Board Chairman and its members cannot be the formulators and implementers of the policies of the Bureau.
He added that section three (3) sub-sections (1) of the Adamawa State Public Procurement Law, 2020 as amended, gave credence to his assertions.
Markus then urged the assembly to in the interest of transparency and accountability allow the law as it is.
In view of the above therefore, the Bureau, in-line with your request for input via letter dated 12th February, 2025, we wish to submit our opinion on the matter below:-
“Section 3 Subsection (5) of the principal Law 2020 as amended should be retained. Amendment to section 3 of the principal law by deleting sub-section 5 and substituting with a new sub-section is contrary to the provision in section 4 and 7 of the principal Law, 2020 (see annex I), where the functions of the Bureau and Board are clearly delineated. The separation of roles is in order to devolve powers for transparency and accountability in the administration of procurement in the state. This is in-line with UNCITRAL Laws.
“Section 3 sub-section (5) of the Principal Law, 2020 should be retained.Section 3 and 5 of the principal Law, 2020 as amended provides for the Establishment of a Board on Public Procurement and the Bureau of Public procurement and its membership. The chairman as the head of the Board is responsible for coordinating the affairs of the Board. The role of the Director General is clearly stated in section 9 of the Principal Law, 2020 as amended (See annex I). The role of the chairman as the Chief executive of the Bureau will be tantamount to the effective/efficient administration of the Bureau encapsulated in the principal Law, 2020 under the provisions of Section 10 sub-section (3) which provide that: “the Board shall have power to modify the operational structure of the Bureau’s duties and functions under this law”.
“The Public Procurement Law, 2020 as amended is built around the functions and objectives of the Board on Public Procurement and the Bureau of Public Procurement as separate entities under one roof for the administration/regulation of Public Procurement in the State.
“Therefore, the Chairman doubling as head of the Board and chief executive of the Bureau weakens the checks and balances mechanism and does not ensure world best practice (See Annex II Lagos State Public Procurement Law 2021 Section 20 sub-section 2(b) and Annex III Kaduna State Public Procurement Law 2016 Section 7 Sub-section 2 and Section 25 Sub-Section 2 (a) Annex IV Katsina State Public Procurement Law 2017 Section 6 Sub-section (2) and Section 13 Sub-Section 2(a).”
He noted that section 9 of the principal Law, 2020 sub-section (2) (a) as amended should be retained. “The accounting officer has the overall responsibility of ensuring the smooth administration of the Bureau. Therefore status quo should be maintained on the basis of accountability.
“The global best procurement practice is to have no political interference in the procurement process and procedure. Similarly the office of the Director General is politically exposed, therefore the position of the Director General is more appropriate as the Chief Executive for reasons of accountability. Section 22 of the Public Procurement Law, 2020 as amended (See Annex I) clearly states the role of the accounting officer which makes it suiting with the role of chief executive/accounting officer in the case of an agency or Bureau” he said.
On section 10 sub-section (4)(a) of the Principal Law, 2020 as amended, the BPP urged the lawmakers not to temper the section on the reason of uniformity with section 10 sub-section (4) (f) and section 9 sub-section (2)(a).
“The status quo should be maintained as regard the role of the Secretary/Legal adviser of the Bureau (See Annex I). The Bureau will like to also draw the attention of the Honorable House that the Nigeria Forum (NGF), Technical Assistance under the World Bank State Fiscal Transparency Accountability and Sustainability (SFTAS) project, has reviewed and certified the Adamawa State Public Procurement Principal Law, 2020 as amended (APL) satisfactory.
“The report specifically acknowledged: “the Bureau and the Board under the (APL) shall carry out procurement regulatory functions, to regulate and coordinate all public procurement of Goods, Works and Services. The Bureau shall formulate general policies and guidelines relating to public sector procurement for the approval of the Board see Section 7(a)” (See Annex I).
“Only Section 17(2) Adamawa State APL was found to be unsatisfactory (See annex I). The Honourable House may also wish to recall that it was with the present Law/Structure of the Bureau that has made it easier for the State to achieve SFTAS set of DLIs earning good amount of funds for the State in the year 2020 and 2021 where its Annual Performance Assessment (APA) was critically based on the present structure.
“The Honourable House may also wish to note that the proposed amendment bill 2025, if passed into Law, will contradict the conformity with the UNCITRAL LAW and other State Public Procurement Law in the Country. In view of that, the State may stand the risk of losing Millions of dollars in grants as well as further support from other internation donor agencies.
“The Honourable House may also wish to note that the State Public Procurement Law is witnessing frequent amendment within the short period of time from it’s enactment. However, updates to the Law are sometimes necessary to improve efficiency and transparency, frequent changes can create instability and inefficiency in the public procurement system.
“Some of the inherent disadvantages include but not limited to; Reduced investor confidence; Unstable procurement regulations may discourage investors and contractors especially in long term infrastructure and Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects, which will jeopardize the aim of the Government in keying into World Bank State Action on Business Enabling Reforms (SABER) Programme.
“Risk of Political Manipulation; Frequent amendments may be driven by political interest rather than genuine improvement leading to unfair procurement process. Increased Administrative Budget; Especially with the proposed structure which will lead to bureaucratic bottleneck as a result of which there will be delays in awarding contracts and implementing critical public projects,” he said
The DG advised the Committee to seek the counsel of established non state actor’s i.e. Association of Professional Bodies invited to serve as ex-officio members in the Board on Public Procurement (Nigerian Society of Engineers, Chattered Institute of Purchasing and Supply Management of Nigeria (CIPSMN), Chamber of Commerce and Industries, Institute of Surveyors and Estate Valuers) and other relevant authorities to contribute with their express opinions on the matter.
Also speaking, a critical stakeholder who preferred anonymity said the amendment to the law will be a bad omen to Adamawa State as it was glaring that it was planned to whittle transparency and accountability.
“The Adamawa State Public Procurement Law is designed to regulate the procurement of goods, services, and works within the public sector in Adamawa State. The primary objective of this law is to foster transparency and accountability in Government procurement dealings.
“The proposed amendment to the Adamawa State Public Procurement Law 2025, which seeks to make the board chairman the chief executive officer (CEO) of the procurement agency and create non-ex officio board members by amending Sections 3, 9 and 10 of the law, reflects a troubling connivance between the executive and legislative arms of the state government to weaken the law.
“This move undermines the principles of good governance, accountability, and transparency, which are central to international best practices such as the UNCITRAL Model Law on Public Procurement. It also represents a significant setback to the progress achieved under the State Fiscal Transparency, Accountability, and Sustainability Programme for Results (SFTAS), which previously guided reforms to the state’s procurement system and enabled Adamawa State earned more than $5 million grant (under public procurement reform in the State).
“The SFTAS programme, supported by the World Bank and implemented through the Federal Ministry of Finance, Office of the Auditor General of the Federation and the Nigerian Governors Forum, was designed to strengthen fiscal transparency and accountability in Nigerian states.
“Adamawa State’s previous amendments to its procurement law in 2020, driven by SFTAS recommendations, were instrumental in meeting the Disbursement Linked Indicators (DLIs) and qualifying for performance-based grants as indicated above. These reforms emphasized the separation of governance and management roles, the inclusion of ex officio board members with relevant expertise, and the establishment of robust accountability mechanisms. These measures not only enhanced the credibility of the procurement process but also demonstrated the state’s commitment to international best practices.
“However, the current attempt by the executive and legislative arms to amend the law represents a deliberate effort to weaken these safeguards. By merging the roles of board chairman and CEO, the amendment concentrates power in the hands of a single individual, often a political appointee, thereby politicizing the procurement agency and undermining its independence.
“This move contradicts the UNCITRAL Model Law’s principle of maintaining a clear distinction between oversight and operational roles to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality. Furthermore, the creation of non-ex officio board members, as proposed in the amendment to Sections 3, 9 and 10, risks replacing qualified, accountable representatives with political loyalists, further eroding the board’s effectiveness and credibility..
“The connivance between the executive and legislative arms to push through these amendments raises serious concerns about their commitment to transparency and accountability. It suggests a deliberate effort to centralize control over procurement processes, potentially for political or personal gain, at the expense of the public interest.
“This undermines the progress made under SFTAS and jeopardizes the state’s eligibility for future performance-based grants or development funding.
“In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Adamawa State Public Procurement Law 2025 represent a significant step backward in the state’s efforts to establish a transparent, accountable, and efficient procurement system.
“The executive and legislative arms’ collaboration to weaken the law undermines the principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law and reverses the gains achieved under the SFTAS programme. To preserve these achievements and ensure continued progress, it is essential to reject these amendments, maintain a clear separation of roles, uphold the inclusion of ex officio board members, and prioritize the public interest in all procurement reforms. Only by adhering to international best practices, Adamawa State can build a procurement system that fosters trust, promotes value for money,” the stakeholder noted.
