Connect with us

News

WHAT PAID LEARNED THE HARD WAY, BENUE’S CONTRACTORS MUST LEARN NOW

Published

on

By: Aondoakaa Tersugh Daniel | 10/06/2026

There are moments in a nation’s legal history that pass without the public fully grasping how close the edge was. Nigeria stood at one such edge, staring down an $11 billion liability that could have triggered a financial catastrophe of generational proportions. That it did not happen is not accidental. It is, in very large part, the story of one lawyer, one former Attorney General of the Federation, who refused to let Nigeria be robbed in a suit and tie.

The case in question is the P&ID dispute, arguably the most dangerous legal and financial threat Nigeria has faced in its post-independence history. Process and Industrial Developments Limited, a company floated by two Irish businessmen, anchored its claim on a Gas Supply and Processing Agreement signed in 2010. The terms were straightforward on paper: Nigeria would supply wet gas, P&ID would build and operate a processing plant in Calabar, Cross River State. Nigeria allegedly failed to supply the gas. But there was no site to make the supply in the first place, because no construction had been done anywhere in Calabar for such purposes. P&ID went to arbitration, won, and the award ballooned from approximately $6.6 billion to nearly $11 billion with accumulated interest. For context, that figure at the time represented a significant fraction of Nigeria’s foreign reserves. A judgment of that magnitude, enforced against Nigerian assets abroad, would have been a national catastrophe.

Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa SAN was Attorney General of the Federation when that agreement was allegedly signed in 2010 under the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. When the crisis matured into a full legal emergency years later, he stepped forward and made the argument that unravelled the entire arrangement. His position was precise and prosecutorial: the contract was never subjected to Federal Executive Council approval as required by law, the deal bore the fingerprints of fraud from inception, and a coalition of Nigerian officials and foreign actors had conspired to engineer a liability that the Nigerian people would be made to pay. The office of the Attorney General and Ministry of Justice was not consulted on the contract. Neither was the Infrastructure Regulatory Commission. That argument gave Nigeria the legal and moral ground to fight back. It is on record that his intervention was central to turning the tide of a case that had appeared already lost. It was a case of fraud. Aondoakaa was drafted into the legal team to defend Nigeria. Nigeria won.

That history is not being recalled here for sentiment. It is being recalled because it is directly relevant to what is happening in Benue State today under the Alia administration.

The questions surrounding how contracts have been awarded under Governor Hyacinth Iormen Alia, why projects sit stalled at mobilisation stage, why garnishee orders are freezing state accounts, and why a N68 billion road looks more like an excavation exhibition than a construction site, all of these questions bear an uncomfortable structural resemblance to the P&ID anatomy. Inflated figures. Questionable approvals. Mobilisation paid, work abandoned. The public left staring at broken earth. It is alleged that some of these contracts have been padded by as much as 140% above their legitimate value. If that allegation has any substance, it means Benue State is carrying a fiscal weight that was artificially manufactured to benefit a few people at the top of the food chain.

And it does not stop at the major contracts. It is also alleged that the Governor has directed council chairmen across all 23 local government areas of Benue State to award N5 billion road contracts covering five kilometres in each area, at a flat rate of N1 billion per kilometre. That flat rate is applied uniformly without any regard to the varying soil types and topographic conditions across these 23 local government areas, factors that any competent engineer or quantity surveyor would insist must reasonably and necessarily affect cost from one location to another. A road through the hilly terrain of one local government area does not cost the same as a road across the flatter landscapes of another. When a government ignores that basic reality and fixes a uniform price across the entire state, the question is not whether padding exists. The question is how much and who is collecting it. Across 23 local government areas, a flat and unjustifiable rate of N1 billion per kilometre has the potential to manufacture billions in artificial expenditure, all of it traceable to a single directive from the top.

There is approximately one year left in the Alia administration. That window may not be enough to complete what has been deliberately left incomplete. Any contractor banking on the continuation of the current arrangement to escape scrutiny should now begin to think differently. When Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa SAN becomes Governor of Benue State, he will not be arriving as a newcomer to the business of unravelling fraudulent contracts. He arrives as a man who has already done it at the level of an $11 billion international arbitration dispute. He saved Nigeria from that exposure. The question that should now keep contractors and their accomplices awake at night is this: what would he do to a local contract padded at 140% in a state he is coming to govern?

The answer is not difficult to find. An Aondoakaa administration would conduct a full reevaluation of every contract awarded under the current dispensation. Projects found uncompleted would face fresh scrutiny on their terms, their award processes, and their payment histories. Projects completed but with outstanding payment claims would be examined against their original contract sums and the going market rates for similar work. Where padding is established, the demand would not be for sympathy. It would be for refunds.

Contractors who chose to participate in a system where mobilisation funds were allegedly siphoned before work could begin are not entirely blameless actors. They signed contracts. They collected funds. They broke ground to create the appearance of work, and then they stopped. A state that has had its accounts frozen by garnishee orders because of those arrangements deserves a government that will trace every naira back to its source and account for where it went.

It should be clearly understood that money has DNA and its end users can be traced. This is where the Tiv adage finds full expression: when you pull the tail, the head comes along. Alia is setting himself up for what many may be persuaded to call a witch-hunt when his four years are over, but the questionable contracts are a problem the masses are not seeing now. Those who are potential accomplices should take note. When the time of reckoning comes, the office of the Attorney General of the state would be dragged into it. The procurement office would be dragged into it. All contractors would be dragged into it. All local government chairmen would be dragged into it. At the end, Alia himself would be brought to question. Make no mistake, Alia already has a place in the prison and is only waiting for the time the pronouncement would come. The case of Suswam is far more tolerable than what Alia is currently doing.

Chief Aondoakaa rebuilt his national reputation on exactly that kind of reckoning. Benue is a smaller theatre but the stakes for its people are no less real. The man who defended a nation against an $11 billion fraud is more than equipped to defend a state against its own internal version of the same disease.

The P&ID case taught Nigeria that fraudulent contracts, no matter how cleverly dressed in legal language, can be unwound when the right person is willing to stand up and pull the thread. Benue’s contracts are waiting for that same hand. It is coming.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Stakeholders, Staff Benefit from NDPHC’s Procurement Training Initiative

Published

on

The Niger Delta Power Holding Company (NDPHC) has reaffirmed its commitment to transparency, accountability, and efficiency in project delivery by hosting a high-level refresher and sensitization training for its management team, staff, and stakeholders.Organized by the Human Resources Department at the company’s headquarters, the programme was designed to strengthen institutional capacity, refresh knowledge, and promote greater effectiveness in the discharge of responsibilities.The training was anchored on the theme “Operationalizing by Way of Experimenting the Procurement Processes While Navigating the Pre-Bidding Stage Through to Post Bidding”, and facilitated by DEVD Integrated Project Ltd. Discussions focused on procurement processes, emphasizing due process, compliance, and optimization in power sector project execution.Participants were guided through the critical stages of procurement, from pre-bidding to post-bidding, with facilitators stressing the importance of adherence to established procedures. The session also provided a platform for robust engagement on stakeholder collaboration, highlighting how effective partnerships can drive efficiency and accountability in project delivery.The initiative enjoyed strong backing from the NDPHC Executive Management (EXCO), led by Engr. Jennifer Adighije, FNSE, FINEEE, Managing Director/CEO. She was joined by her team: Engr. Bello Babayo Bello, FNSE, FINEEE, Executive Director (Networks); Engr. Abdullahi Kassim, Executive Director (Generation); Hon. Dr. Steven Andzenge, Executive Director (Legal Services); Hon. Chukwuma Umeoji, Executive Director (Corporate Services); Hon. Omololu Agoro, Executive Director (Finance & Accounts); and Hon. Patrick Obahiagbon, Executive Director (Strategy and Commercial). Their collective presence underscored the importance of the training to the company’s strategic vision and operational goals.Facilitators encouraged participants to apply the knowledge gained to improve operational efficiency and foster stronger collaboration across departments and with external stakeholders. They noted that the lessons learned would help strengthen the company’s institutional framework and ensure that projects are delivered in line with global best practices.The event brought together management staff and other relevant stakeholders, creating an opportunity to exchange ideas and refresh their understanding of procurement processes. It also reinforced NDPHC’s commitment to professional development, transparency, and accountability in its operations.By investing in capacity-building programmes such as this, NDPHC continues to demonstrate its resolve to enhance professional standards and institutional effectiveness. The company emphasized that the training reflects its broader vision of building a stronger, more accountable institution capable of delivering sustainable power solutions to Nigeria.The sensitization exercise forms part of NDPHC’s ongoing efforts to ensure that its workforce remains equipped with the skills and knowledge required to meet the demands of the power sector. It underscores the company’s belief that continuous learning and adherence to due process are essential for achieving its corporate objectives and delivering value to stakeholders.

Continue Reading

News

Hon. Jafaru Yakubu Commends President Tinubu’s Approval of Mutum Biyu–Garba Chede Road Reconstruction

Published

on

Hon. Jafaru Yakubu, Member of the House of Representatives and Chairman, House Committee on Nigeria–China Friendship Group, has commended President Bola Ahmed Tinubu GCFR for granting approval for the urgent rehabilitation and total reconstruction of the Mutum Biyu–Garba Chede Road, a 48km stretch in Taraba State.

Yakubu, who sponsored the motion in the House of Representatives calling for immediate intervention on the road, said the President’s approval is a bold and strategic response to the plight of commuters and communities along the corridor. He explained that the motion, which was debated and adopted by the House, underscored the dangers of continued neglect, including accidents, economic disruption, and the risk of total collapse.

He further acknowledged the National Security Adviser (NSA) Mallam Nuhu Ribadu for adopting a non-kinetic approach in addressing the crisis. According to Yakubu, the NSA’s intervention elevated the urgency of the project, treating infrastructure development as a vital instrument of peace, security, and stability. By drawing national attention to the road’s deterioration, the NSA highlighted the grave risks posed to lives, trade, agriculture, and access to healthcare.

The Mutum Biyu–Garba Chede Road, constructed in the early 1980s, has deteriorated severely due to age and lack of maintenance. With the collapse of the Namnai Bridge along the Jalingo–Wukari highway, the road became the sole alternative route for heavy-duty trucks, worsening its condition and exposing communities to untold hardship.

Hon. Yakubu assured his constituents that he will continue to work closely with the Federal Ministry of Works, FERMA, and the North East Development Commission to ensure the project’s swift execution. He emphasized that the House Committee on Works has already been mandated to conduct oversight and report back within four weeks, a step he believes will guarantee transparency and accountability in the delivery of the project.

“As Chairman of the Nigeria–China Friendship Group, I am deeply conscious of the importance of strategic partnerships in advancing national development. This reconstruction is not merely about infrastructure—it is about saving lives, strengthening commerce, and reaffirming government’s duty to serve its people. On behalf of my constituency, I extend profound gratitude to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu GCFR and the NSA for their steadfast commitment,” Yakubu declared.

The approval of this project, following Yakubu’s sponsored motion, is widely seen as a demonstration of leadership that listens and acts decisively. For communities in Mutum Biyu, Garba Chede, and adjoining areas, the reconstruction represents hope for safer travel, renewed economic activity, and restored dignity after years of neglect.

Analysts note that the development is not just about fixing a road but about reconnecting people, boosting agriculture, and reinforcing national cohesion at a time when infrastructure remains central to Nigeria’s growth agenda.

Continue Reading

News

BUDGET OFFICE OF THE FEDERATIONRESPONSE TO THE 2026 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT ON NIGERIA

Published

on

  1. Introduction
    The Budget Office of the Federation (BOF) notes the observations on Nigeria contained in the 2026 Fiscal Transparency Report of the United States Department of State. The Federal Government welcomes objective assessments of its public financial management system and remains committed to the continuous improvement of fiscal transparency, accountability and access to public finance information.
    The Report acknowledges important areas in which Nigeria meets fiscal transparency requirements, including the public availability of the enacted budget and end-of-year fiscal information; the disclosure of debt obligations, including major state-owned enterprise debt; the legal and disclosure framework governing the sovereign wealth fund; and the existence and application of statutory procedures governing natural-resource extraction contracts and licences.
    Other observations in the Report require clarification when considered in the context of Nigeria’s institutional allocation of responsibilities and the range of budgetary and fiscal information already in the public domain. The purpose of this response is therefore not to dispute the value of external scrutiny, but to ensure that the factual record and the structure of Nigeria’s fiscal system are properly understood.
  2. Mandate of the Budget Office of the Federation
    The BOF is responsible for coordinating the preparation and consolidation of the Federal Government’s budget, and for monitoring and reporting on its implementation within the framework established by law and government fiscal policy.
    Its responsibilities include coordinating the preparation of the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework and Fiscal Strategy Paper (MTEF/FSP); issuing Budget Call Circulars; coordinating the preparation of Medium-Term Sector Strategies; coordinating the preparation and consolidation of the Executive Budget Proposal; supporting the appropriation process; monitoring budget implementation; and producing periodic Budget Implementation Reports.
    These responsibilities form part of a wider public financial management system in which different institutions perform duties assigned to them by the Constitution and by statute. Debt recording and management fall principally within the remit of the Debt Management Office; government accounting, treasury and cash-management functions reside principally in the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation; external audit is constitutionally assigned to the Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation; while federal procurement operates within the statutory framework administered by the Bureau of Public Procurement and individual procuring entities.
    The observations in the Report are therefore best considered in the context of this institutional division of responsibility. Fiscal transparency is the product of an interconnected system; no single institution produces or controls every category of information on which an assessment of the entire system must depend.
  3. Publication and Accessibility of Budget Information
    The Report recommends that Nigeria make its Executive Budget Proposal widely and easily accessible to the public, including online. The BOF respectfully notes that the online publication of the Executive Budget Proposal and other major budget documents has, for several years, formed part of the Federal Government’s established budget process.
    The BOF routinely publishes major documents produced at successive stages of the fiscal cycle. These include the MTEF/FSP, the Executive Budget Proposal and detailed estimates, Appropriation Acts, implementation guidelines, and periodic Budget Implementation Reports.
    For example, the 2025 Executive Budget Proposal was published on the BOF website on 18 December 2024 alongside the 2025 Appropriation Bill. The 2026-2028 MTEF/FSP was similarly published, while the 2026 Appropriation Bill and its detailed estimates were placed on the BOF website on 8 January 2026.
    The purpose of continuing reform, therefore, is not to create a practice of publication where none exists, but to make an established practice more timely, systematic and easier for users to navigate. Fiscal information is useful not merely because it exists, but because it is published at the appropriate time, clearly identified and readily connected to the other documents needed to understand the fiscal picture.
    Following presidential assent to an Appropriation Act, the signed instrument is subjected to validation and line-by-line reconciliation against the version passed by the National Assembly before the final budget details are reflected on the Government’s financial management platform and released for public use. This process is intended to ensure that the figures, codes and statutory references placed before the public correspond with the instrument that has become law.
    For the 2026 Appropriation Act, this process took longer than would ordinarily be desirable. The Budget Office considered it preferable to complete the necessary validation before publication rather than place in the public domain figures that might later require correction. That choice protected the integrity of the published record, but the delay also demonstrates the need to shorten the interval between presidential assent and public availability.
    The lesson is therefore twofold: published fiscal information must be reliable, but that reliability must increasingly be achieved without sacrificing timeliness. The BOF is reviewing its internal sequencing, validation and publication arrangements with that objective in mind.
  4. Completeness of the Presentation of Government Revenues and Expenditures
    The Report recommends that the budget provide a substantially complete picture of government revenues and expenditures. Nigeria’s fiscal framework is expressed through several related documents rather than through a single instrument. The MTEF/FSP establishes the macroeconomic and fiscal assumptions underlying the annual budget. The Executive Budget Proposal, Appropriation Bill and detailed estimates set out proposed expenditure allocations, revenue assumptions and the financing framework. Budget Implementation Reports subsequently show performance against approved benchmarks.
    Taken together, these documents contain extensive information on projected revenues, expenditure proposals, financing and the operations of Government-Owned Enterprises. The budget documentation also provides information on grants, external financing and other material fiscal flows within the Federal Government’s reporting framework.
    Expenditure is presented through institutional and economic classifications, including allocations to ministries, departments and agencies. The Government also publishes detailed estimates relating to the Presidency and other institutions of government, subject always to the legitimate requirements of law, national security and operational confidentiality.
    The BOF therefore considers that an assessment of Nigeria’s fiscal transparency is most complete when it examines the available budget documents as a body, rather than treating any one document as though it were intended to contain the entire fiscal account.
    This does not remove the need for improvement. Citizens, investors and other users of fiscal information should be able to understand the broad relationship among revenue, expenditure, financing and fiscal risks without having to reconstruct the fiscal picture from numerous documents. The Office will therefore continue to improve consolidation, cross-referencing and presentation so that information already disclosed across different fiscal documents can be more readily understood as a coherent whole.
  5. Expenditures Relating to Executive Offices
    The Report recommends a clearer breakdown of expenditures supporting executive offices. The BOF agrees with the transparency objective underlying this recommendation.
    Appropriations to offices and institutions within the Executive are subject to the same constitutional appropriation process that applies to other Federal Government entities. Detailed estimates are already published within the budget documentation. Where expenditures are currently aggregated within broader administrative, personnel or service-wide classifications, there remains scope to improve their presentation without compromising legitimate security, statutory or operational considerations.
    The BOF will accordingly continue to examine the classification and presentation of such expenditures with a view to improving public understanding within the applicable legal and security framework.
  6. Variance Between Budgeted and Actual Revenues and Expenditures
    The Report observes that actual revenues and expenditures did not reasonably correspond with the enacted budget. The BOF considers that this observation would benefit from greater precision regarding the standard against which such correspondence is being assessed.
    An appropriation is an authority to spend; it is not, in every circumstance, a guarantee that the entire amount appropriated will become available in cash. Actual fiscal outcomes depend on realised revenues, oil production and prices, tax collections, exchange rates, financing conditions, cash availability and the timing of expenditure execution. A difference between an approved budget and the eventual outturn must therefore be interpreted rather than merely observed.
    The central transparency question is whether material deviations are identified, explained and reported. This is one of the purposes of the Budget Implementation Reports produced by the BOF, which compare revenue and expenditure performance against approved benchmarks and explain significant departures from the fiscal plan.
    At the same time, persistent or unusually large differences between appropriations and outturns can weaken the usefulness of the budget as an instrument of economic management. The Government’s continuing reforms therefore place greater emphasis on realistic revenue forecasting, improved revenue mobilisation, stronger commitment controls, better cash planning and closer alignment between appropriations and available financing.
  7. Audit Independence and Publication of Audit Reports
    The observations concerning the independence of the Supreme Audit Institution and the publication of audit reports relate principally to the constitutional and statutory mandate of the Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation and to the wider legislative framework governing public audit.
    The BOF supports a strong and independent external audit function as an essential component of fiscal accountability. It will continue to provide the budgetary and implementation information required within its mandate and to cooperate with the Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation and other oversight institutions.
    Institutional or legislative questions concerning the independence, powers and publication obligations of the Supreme Audit Institution are, however, appropriately addressed in conjunction with the Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation, the National Assembly and other authorities responsible for the applicable legal framework.
  8. Public Procurement Information
    Federal procurement is governed by the Public Procurement Act and the institutional framework administered by the Bureau of Public Procurement, while procurement transactions are undertaken by individual procuring entities. The recommendation concerning the publication of accessible information on procurement contracts should therefore be addressed principally through that framework.
    The BOF nevertheless recognises the close relationship among appropriation, procurement, commitment and payment. Greater interoperability among budget, procurement and treasury information systems would materially improve the public’s ability to follow expenditure from appropriation through procurement to eventual payment and delivery. The Office supports the continued development of such integrated public financial management arrangements.
  9. Timeliness, Institutional Capacity and the Fiscal Responsibility Framework
    Fiscal transparency should be treated as a continuing institutional obligation, not as an exercise undertaken solely in response to an external assessment. The experience of producing statutory fiscal reports has, however, brought into sharper focus a question that warrants attention beyond administrative improvement alone.
    Fiscal reports are assembled from numerous sources across government. Their reliability depends on the timely submission of information, reconciliation among institutions, resolution of discrepancies and verification before publication. Where these processes repeatedly require more time than the statutory reporting period permits, the response should not simply be to normalise lateness.
    Government must first improve the processes that can be improved: clearer responsibility for source data, earlier submission, greater automation, greater interoperability among systems and stricter reporting discipline.
    However, where experience over time demonstrates that a statutory deadline no longer reasonably accommodates the number of institutions, datasets and verification steps required to produce a reliable report, there is also a legitimate case for reviewing the law itself.
    The purpose of the Fiscal Responsibility Act is to strengthen fiscal discipline, accountability and transparency. Its reporting provisions should therefore impose deadlines that are demanding enough to compel administrative discipline, but sufficiently realistic to permit the publication of information whose accuracy can be defended.
    The Federal Government should accordingly consider, through the appropriate legislative process, whether aspects of the reporting timetable under the Fiscal Responsibility Act require amendment in the light of experience since its enactment. Such a review should not weaken reporting obligations. Its purpose should be the opposite: to establish timelines that are credible, enforceable and capable of producing reports that are both timely and reliable.
  10. Institutional Engagement and Continuing Improvement
    The Fiscal Transparency Report can also serve as a basis for constructive technical engagement. The BOF considers it useful to deepen dialogue with the United States Government and other development partners on the methodology used in fiscal transparency assessments, particularly the treatment of multiple publicly available fiscal documents, the measurement of budget credibility, and the standards applied to timeliness and accessibility.
    Such engagement should be approached as an opportunity for clarification and institutional learning rather than as a dispute over the assessment. The Office may also explore appropriate technical assistance arrangements to strengthen its capacity in fiscal reporting, information management, digital publication, interoperability and public accessibility. Any such cooperation should complement Nigeria’s own reforms and operate within the Government’s legal, institutional and information-security framework.
  11. Conclusion
    Nigeria accepts the principle at the heart of fiscal transparency: citizens and other stakeholders should be able, without unnecessary difficulty, to know what the Government intends to raise and spend, what the legislature has authorised, what was eventually received and spent, and how public resources were accounted for and audited.
    Nigeria has already built a substantial architecture for making this information public. The question before us is therefore not whether disclosure exists, but how to make the existing system faster, clearer, more complete and easier to understand.
    There are areas in which Government must improve its own processes. There are areas in which fiscal information already exists but must be assembled and presented more coherently. There are responsibilities that belong to institutions other than the Budget Office. There may also now be statutory reporting timelines whose continued practicality deserves examination in the light of experience.
    A mature system should be able to acknowledge all four points without defensiveness.
    The Budget Office therefore welcomes external assessments that assist Nigeria in strengthening its institutions. It also considers it important that such assessments take account of the full range of fiscal documents made publicly available and of the constitutional and statutory division of responsibilities among institutions.
    The Federal Government remains committed to a budget system in which fiscal decisions are not only lawful and disciplined, but are also increasingly transparent, accessible, intelligible and capable of independent public scrutiny.

Tanimu Yakubu
Director-General
Budget Office of the Federation
Abuja
18 August 2026

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.