The House of Representatives has committed to tackling the persistent issue of contract execution delays in Nigeria, a concern highlighted during a public hearing held by the Committee on Public Procurement, led by Chairman Unyime Idem. The focus of the hearing was on a proposed amendment to the Public Procurement Act of 2004, with Idem revealing that over 90 percent of capital projects in the country are encountering requests for variations. These requests are primarily attributed to delays arising from inadequate project management practices. The problem becomes even more pressing due to the exacerbating effects of inflation and currency devaluation, which significantly inflate project costs.
Idem pointed out that the culture of project delays predates the current economic challenges, indicating a long-standing issue that requires legislative intervention. He noted that contractors tend to show little concern for the repercussions of their delays, attributing this behavior to a range of factors including incompetence, poor prioritization of government projects, and corruption. In making a comparative analysis, the committee chairman emphasized how Nigeria’s project timelines starkly contrast with those in other countries, such as Egypt, where contractors are able to complete projects in significantly shorter time frames. In contrast, projects in Nigeria typically take between five to six years to complete and face high rates of abandonment.
The issue of project delays not only impacts governance but also hinders the timely delivery of essential public goods to citizens. This raises critical questions for legislators, as constituents often seek answers regarding stalled or abandoned projects. The challenge for lawmakers is to find solutions that not only address the immediate concerns of project delays but also create a more efficient framework for project execution and delivery in the future. Therefore, the House is under pressure to devise tangible strategies that will mitigate the delays and improve accountability within public procurement processes.
Contrasting with Idem’s thrust for amendments, both current and former Directors-General of the Bureau of Public Procurement, Adebowale Adedokun and Emeka Ezeh, voiced opposition to the proposed changes. They contended that the existing legislation already encompasses sanctions for delays within the terms of contracts. Adedokun expressed concern that the suggested amendments would be redundant, reiterating that the Public Procurement Act of 2007 lays out a comprehensive legal framework that governs procurement processes, ensuring standards for competition and transparency.
Adding to this argument, Ezeh emphasized that the proposed amendments only tackle the symptoms of delays rather than addressing the underlying causes. He called for a holistic approach that reviews the entire project delivery chain, which includes all stages from needs assessment to procurement and contract execution. This perspective highlights the complexity of project management issues that can arise at multiple points in the process, including design phases or the decision-making related to contractor selection.
In summary, while the House of Representatives is keen on amending the Public Procurement Act to address delays in contract execution, the current and former leaders of the Bureau of Public Procurement advocate for maintaining the existing framework rather than introducing changes that could complicate the procurement landscape. As discussions continue, the challenge remains to find a balanced approach that effectively tackles the root causes of project delays, ensuring accountability and efficiency in the delivery of public services while simultaneously maintaining the integrity of existing procurement regulations.
