The Federal Government has warned public institutions against inflated contract prices, restricted competition and violations of procurement laws. But before Nigerians applaud another declaration against corruption, one question deserves an answer: will President Bola Tinubu’s administration investigate its own contracts with the same determination it expects from other institutions?
Secretary to the Government of the Federation, George Akume, reportedly issued a directive drawing attention to procurement practices that undermine transparency, fair competition and value for money. The warning highlighted concerns about inflated prices, restrictions that prevent qualified businesses from competing and breaches of public procurement requirements.
The concerns are legitimate. Public procurement is one of the largest channels through which government revenue is converted into contracts, infrastructure, supplies and services. It is also an area where weak oversight can expose public funds to waste, abuse and possible corruption.
When a government contract is overpriced, taxpayers may end up paying far more than necessary for the same work. When competition is deliberately restricted without lawful justification, qualified contractors can be excluded. When procurement procedures are bypassed, the risk of favouritism, inflated costs and poor project delivery increases.
But the Federal Government must understand something: issuing a warning against contract inflation is not the same as confronting it.
Nigerians have heard repeated promises to fight corruption. They have also seen official declarations, policy directives and assurances of transparency. What remains essential is evidence that public officials and contractors are actually being held accountable when procurement rules are violated.
And that brings the spotlight back to the government itself.
Will the administration examine its own contracts?
The Tinubu administration oversees ministries, departments and agencies awarding and supervising public contracts. These institutions handle enormous sums of public money. Their procurement decisions should not be exempt from scrutiny simply because they operate under the same government issuing the latest warning.
Will the Federal Government order a review of major contracts awarded under its administration?
Will it examine contracts whose costs have increased significantly after approval? Will it investigate questionable variations, restricted tendering processes, unexplained cost differences and payments made without corresponding evidence of completed work?
More importantly, will Nigerians be told what those investigations uncover?
If the government believes inflated contracts are a serious threat to public finances, it should be prepared to examine its own procurement records and publish the findings.
The public should not be asked to accept assurances while the contracts, contractors, approving authorities and payment records remain inaccessible.
Where are the contracts, figures and investigation reports?
A high contract price is not automatically evidence of corruption. Projects differ in location, design, materials, technical specifications, security requirements and delivery conditions. A fair assessment must consider these factors.
However, where contract prices appear unreasonable, the authorities must provide evidence to explain them.
For every contract under investigation, Nigerians should be able to establish:
– The original approved project estimate and the basis for calculating it.
– The procurement method used and whether competition was genuinely open.
– The identity of the successful contractor and the relevant approving authorities.
– The contract value, scope of work and implementation deadline.
– Any subsequent variations, additional costs and the reasons for approving them.
– The amounts paid and the actual work completed.
– The findings of any independent technical or financial review.
Without these records, claims about inflated contracts cannot be properly examined, and the public cannot determine whether government money is being spent responsibly.
The administration must also explain whether any contracts have been suspended, reviewed or referred for investigation following the latest directive.
Who will investigate the people responsible?
The Bureau of Public Procurement and the relevant anti-corruption agencies have statutory responsibilities that cannot be replaced by a general government warning.
Where credible evidence of procurement fraud, abuse of office or other wrongdoing exists, the appropriate authorities must investigate within their legal powers.
But Nigerians need more than assurances that investigations will take place.
Which institutions have submitted cases for review? How many contracts have been examined? Have any public officials or contractors been questioned? Have suspected violations been referred to the appropriate agencies? Have any public funds been recovered?
And where wrongdoing is established, what lawful sanctions have followed?
The public must also know whether institutions that repeatedly disregard procurement requirements face meaningful consequences. Otherwise, another directive risks becoming a document officials acknowledge without changing how public contracts are awarded and managed.
Will politically connected contractors face the same scrutiny?
One of the most important tests of any anti-corruption campaign is whether enforcement applies equally, regardless of political influence or official position.
The government must demonstrate that procurement rules apply to everyone: senior public officials, ministry executives, procurement officers, contractors and politically connected individuals.
No contractor should enjoy protection because of political relationships. No public official should escape investigation because of their position. Equally, nobody should be declared guilty without evidence and due process.
If the administration is serious about protecting public funds, it should publish credible investigation outcomes and demonstrate that accountability does not stop at the doors of powerful institutions.
This responsibility extends beyond Abuja
The problem of procurement transparency is not limited to the Federal Government. State governments and local authorities also spend public money on roads, hospitals, schools, markets, supplies and other projects.
They should face the same demand for transparent contract awards, verifiable project costs, independent monitoring and public reporting.
Nigerians should not have to wait until a road collapses, a hospital project is abandoned or a public building remains unfinished before discovering that something may have gone wrong with the contract.
Government at every level must make procurement information accessible and establish reliable systems for monitoring project delivery.
A warning is not an accountability record
The Tinubu administration has drawn attention to a serious problem. But it cannot position itself merely as the government warning others against procurement abuses.
It must also demonstrate that its own procurement decisions can withstand independent scrutiny.
The questions are straightforward:
Who has been investigated? Which contracts have been reviewed? How much public money is potentially at risk? Have suspicious payments been suspended? Have any funds been recovered? Have responsible officials or contractors faced lawful sanctions?
And perhaps the most important question: is the administration prepared to investigate contracts awarded under its own watch, even when the findings may involve powerful people?
Nigerians deserve answers supported by procurement records, independent investigations and verifiable enforcement.
The fight against inflated contracts cannot be measured by the number of warnings issued or directives circulated. It must be measured by the public money protected, the irregularities uncovered, the projects delivered and the people held accountable when wrongdoing is established.
Nigeria does not need another declaration against inflated contracts. It needs a government willing to subject its own dealings to transparency, independent scrutiny and the rule of law.
We don’t just report the news. We analyse what it means.
By Viewers Corner News