Yar’adua’s FEC has become a tender’s board –Rep Tuggar

There is a view that the President has violated the Fiscal Responsibility Act in the cause of implementing the budget. Yes, it should have been presented to the House. The midterm profile has been presented to us. But we are concerned that he has not inaugurated the National Council of Public Procurement (NCPP). He requested […]

There is a view that the President has violated the Fiscal Responsibility Act in the cause of implementing the budget.

Yes, it should have been presented to the House. The midterm profile has been presented to us. But we are concerned that he has not inaugurated the National Council of Public Procurement (NCPP). He requested instead for amendment to the Act. Inauguration of the NCPP is intended to end the incidence of favours through contracts to political allies. When you look at the council and the individuals to make it function, you will see that you are bringing a connection between government officials and civil society, media and professional bodies. That way the method of procurement, of awarding contracts, becomes more transparent. Because that has not been done, we continue with the illegality that the Council is meant to stop.

The Council’s director general is its secretary. You have the finance minister as chairman. The head of the Civil Service and secretary of the Government of the Federation are members. We have in it civil societies, the media and Institute of Supply Management and other professional bodies. They are responsible for checking, retiring and reviewing threshold which the President now backs unilaterally. They should consider and approve the threshold. They are also expected to continue to review procurement policies in the country.

What are the consequences of Mr President reviewing the threshold unilaterally?

It’s illegal. The BPP Act says it is the responsibility of the NCPP, not the President. The President has enough powers, but with this law, it is not his responsibility to review the threshold.

But he has proposed amendment to the Act which is awaiting harmonisation between the House and the Senate.

Until that is done and assented to by the President the law stands as it is and you cannot be selective in complying with it. This is essential issue we have with the executive when it comes to the Appropriation Act: selective implementation. You cannot choose what part of the law to implement.

Why would Federal Executive Council be approving contracts?

It’s in the interest of the President and the FEC to distance themselves from operating like a tender’s board and getting involved in who gets what contract. Inaugurate this council so that the whole procurement framework can operate the way the law says it should. First of all you don’t have an in-depth look at spending thresholds and you waste the time of FEC awarding contract, it becomes a sort of tender’s board. FEC is supposed to spend more time on strategic thinking, on conceiving and implementing policies. You lose focus and members of the council are competing to push their own cases, about which contractor gets which contract. They really shouldn’t be involved in tender’s board activity, they should be looking at the overall picture for Nigeria. I will continue to talk of the deficit of strategic thinking in this administration. When you look at, take for instance the Ministry of the Niger Delta Affairs. When you say you’re going to build a coastal road from Lagos to Calabar that will traverse the Niger Delta, you must know how many bridges you’re going to build. I do know that there was a call for tenders recently but I don’t know that there is a provision for that. Conflicts are avoided when we put more efforts on strategic thinking and well-thought-out policy. That is in my humble opinion what the Federal Executive Council made up of the President and the ministers should concentrate on.

How has your committee considered this? How has it impacted on budget  implementation?

The committee has had in-depth consideration of this. The House as a whole has equally considered it. Even before I became committee chairman there was a motion sponsored by the former Committee chairman, last year, when the House adopted that the President should constitute and inaugurate the National Procurement Council. We have written at least two letters to the Secretary to the Government of the Federation urging the President through his office to inaugurate the Council. We have had nothing from there. We will continue to mount the pressure through the legislative compliance committee.  

The amendment bill proposed and passed by the House has no civil societies and the Media from the six non-permanent members of the council. Why were they dropped?

It means they are out. It’s democracy. The House debated it and passed what you see. I cannot say now that am against it. I believe we need the services of professional bodies; we need to make the procurement process contributory and transparent.

Why will the President sign an Act into law only to rush a proposal to amend it?

The President was ill-advised. When you have a new law, you should test it to see whether there is any flaw before you consider an amendment. This law was never tested. The amendment being sought is based on the assumption that the law won’t work.

Most ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) routinely blame poor budget implementation on the Bureau for Public Procurement. Where do you stand on this?

If the Act is implemented fully, there will be less delay in the procurement process. When you look at section 21 and 22, there is the requirement for all the MDAs to have procurement planning committees and tenders board. It requires them to plan adequately for procurement, for contract award and for contracting process even before funds are released. Things will move faster when the funds are released.

So, it is not the Bureau but the MDAs that share the blame for slow or non- implementation of budget?

I don’t think it is the Bureau, I believe given the circumstances; the Bureau is doing its work covering the entire country. The MDGs need to be doing more planning; you don’t plan for the award of contract after the budget is passed or after you received the money. You should do more ahead of time so that when the money comes, you will be ready to execute.

The Senate amended section 16 sub-section 1 of the Act where the Body of Principal Officers constitutes the Tenders’ Board against the current centralised system…

 No, we’re going to deliberate on that immediately we resume. As you have noted the House did not amend that particular section, it is part of what we are going to do in the harmonisation committee. We’re going to consider whether we should continue to subject ourselves or whether the judiciary should continue to subject itself to the Bureau for Public Procurement especially given this circumstance when the Bureau operates solely under the Presidency. We’re separate arms of government and in any case the executive arm is not complying with the law as in this case. It’s double standard, since we are separate and the Judiciary is separate, we should have our own internal procurement framework to ensure that due process is complied with.

How feasible is it with the National Assembly noting that only the judiciary takes its money from the first line charge?

There is no difference, we are not talking about release of fund, but the procurement process after the money has been released. It’s about following due process in the award of contract. Spending of the National Assembly is insignificant compared to that of the executive. It’s like a bucket of water compared to an ocean.