News

Corruption: Concerns As 19 States Indicted Of Procurement Law Violation

Published

3 years ago

August 31, 2023

No fewer than 19 states in Nigeria have been criticized for undermining fiscal transparency following their inability to publish details of procurement processes and contract awards on open contracting portals.

While governors of affected states have been urged to promote accountability and transparency in dispensing public funds.

A recent investigative report by the International Centre for Investigative Reporting (ICIR) had exposed that state governments are not fully utilizing Open Contracting Portals, which are designed to provide transparent and accessible information regarding public procurement.

According to the Editor of ICIR, Victoria Bamas, only 17 states out of the 36 furnished their online public procurement portals with information on the bidding process, contracts award, location of projects, dates of contract award and execution.

Bamas revealed this during an anti-corruption radio programme, PUBLIC CONSCIENCE, produced by the Progressive Impact Organisation for Community Development, PRIMORG, Wednesday in Abuja.

She lauded Adamawa, Edo, Osun, Anambra, Niger state, Borno, Zamfara, Delta, Kano, Kaduna, Cross River, Ogun, Imo Yobe, Lagos, Plateau and Ondo states for updating their open contracting portals and making them accessible for the public.

Bamas tasked state governors to strengthen their open contracting portal, noting that it signifies readiness to deliver good governance while urging Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) to increase sensitization on the need to hold their state governments to account as well as exposing them on how to navigate open contracting platforms.

“Any serious state government to work for the people must promote financial transparency by strengthening open contracting – if a governor is really serious, he will ensure that the state has a functional open contracting portal.

“What CSOs can do is educate the people on open contracting portals, and If the people have that information, then they can actually hold the government to account,” Bamas stated.

Reacting to the flouting of open contracting laws, Data Journalist with Dataphyte, Olanrewaju Oyedeji, lamented that some states in Nigeria are deliberately promoting opacity of public spending rather than fiscal transparency. Noting that the continued inaccessibility of open contracting portals in many states has become a breeding ground for corruption.

Oyedeji called for participatory governance at the subnational, urging state governors to carry citizens along by promoting the use of procurement portals in their states. He decried the ability of the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) in states to encourage fiscal transparency.

He stressed that some governors lack the political will to promote transparency and accountability, hence the need for citizens to do more in holding them accountable.

His words: “I think for the governors that have mindsets of serving the people, one of the critical processes that can be seen is if they can have participatory government. So, governors should make it essential to carry the people through the open contracting portals. Not everybody can go to the government house, but the government house can be on the open contracting portal.

“Citizens should also not get tired of asking the government questions, the media, the CSOs should also try to inform the people more through reports like this,” Oyedeji advised.

Nigerians who called into the radio programme faulted state governments whose contract awards and procurement information are either not accessible or updated on the open contracting portal. In contrast, Akwa Ibom state reportedly does not operate any electronic procurement portal.

Earlier, during the radio programme, a member of the community of Persons With Disability (PWD), Chris Obiora, faulted President Bola Tinubu and state governors for omitting PWDs in their cabinets.

According to Obiora, the implication of their non-inclusion in federal and state cabinets meant concerns of PWDs may not be on the front burner, adding that President Tinubu and state governors ran afoul of the law, which provides for five percent inclusion of PWDs in governance.

Public Conscience is a syndicated weekly anti-corruption radio program PRIMORG uses to draw government and citizens’ attention to corruption and integrity issues in Nigeria.

The program has the support of the MacArthur Foundation.

Share on Facebook

News

NJC Cannot Dictate Chief Judge Nominee to Imo JSC, Attorney-General Insists

Published

1 day ago

November 6, 2026

The Gleamer

Joel Ajayi

The Imo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Hon. Paul Obinatu has challenged the constitutional authority of the National Judicial Council (NJC) to direct the Imo State Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on the candidate whose name it should submit for consideration in the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge of the state, describing such an intervention as an encroachment on the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the State Commission.

In a statement issued on November 6, 2026, the Attorney-General maintained that the NJC lacks the constitutional authority to dictate, control or substitute its preferred candidate for the independent assessment and recommendation process entrusted to the Imo State JSC under the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The objection follows a directive reportedly issued by the NJC to the Imo State JSC at its 112th meeting held on November 3, 2026, concerning the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge for the state.

The Attorney-General argued that the NJC’s constitutional responsibility to recommend a candidate to the Governor does not confer on it the additional power to determine or dictate the candidate the State Judicial Service Commission must submit to it. He maintained that the directive is constitutionally untenable because it interferes with a responsibility expressly vested in the State Judicial Service Commission.

SECTION 202 GUARANTEES IMO JSC’S INDEPENDENCE

Central to the Attorney-General’s objection is Section 202 of the Constitution, which expressly provides that the State Judicial Service Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other authority or person in exercising its constitutionally assigned powers.

He argued that this provision establishes a clear constitutional safeguard against external interference in the Commission’s responsibilities and cannot be overridden by the NJC through administrative directives or procedural guidelines.

According to him, the NJC cannot invoke its national institutional status or its recommendation powers to exercise control over the Imo State JSC in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution.

Consequently, any directive requiring the State JSC to submit a particular candidate or dictating the outcome of its independent assessment would, in the Attorney-General’s interpretation, amount to unconstitutional interference.

CONSTITUTION ASSIGNS DISTINCT RESPONSIBILITIES TO NJC AND STATE JSC

The Attorney-General anchored his position on Section 271(1) and the relevant provisions of the Third Schedule to the Constitution.

Paragraph 6(a) of Part II of the Third Schedule empowers the State Judicial Service Commission to advise the NJC on suitable persons for nomination as Chief Judge of the state.

Conversely, Paragraph 21(c) of Part I of the Third Schedule empowers the NJC to recommend to the Governor, from among the list of persons submitted by the State JSC, a candidate for appointment as Chief Judge.

Section 271(1) further provides that the appointment shall be made by the Governor on the recommendation of the NJC, subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly.

According to the Attorney-General, these provisions establish a clear constitutional sequence: the State JSC identifies and advises on suitable candidates, the NJC considers the submitted names and makes its recommendation to the Governor, while the Governor exercises the appointing authority subject to legislative confirmation.

He insisted that the NJC’s recommendation powers cannot be interpreted as authority to dictate which candidate the State JSC must select or submit, as doing so would effectively transfer the Commission’s constitutional responsibility to the NJC and render Section 202 meaningless.

NJC GUIDELINES CANNOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION

Addressing the NJC’s Guidelines and Procedural Rules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers, the Attorney-General acknowledged the Council’s authority to prescribe and enforce procedural requirements for judicial appointments.

However, he maintained that such guidelines cannot confer powers beyond those granted by the Constitution or be used to compromise the independent functions of the State JSC.

He stressed that the NJC’s responsibility to ensure compliance with appointment procedures must not be extended to usurping the constitutional authority of the Imo State Judicial Service Commission.

COURT DECISIONS REINFORCE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S POSITION

In support of his argument, the Attorney-General cited several judicial authorities which he said affirm the importance of constitutional boundaries and institutional independence.

They include Elelu-Habeeb & Anor. v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors. (2012) LPELR-15515(SC), Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission & Anor. v. Salisu & Ors. (2019) LPELR-47107(CA), and Bamisile v. National Judicial Council & Ors. (2012) LPELR-8381(CA).

Other authorities referenced are FRN v. Nganjiwa (2022) LPELR-58066(SC), NJC & Ors. v. Senlong & Ors. (2010) LPELR-4582(CA), and Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Abia State & Ors. (2024) LPELR-62576(SC).

The Attorney-General maintained that these authorities reinforce the principle that every constitutional institution must exercise its powers strictly within the limits prescribed by law, irrespective of its institutional standing.

IMO CHIEF JUDGE APPOINTMENT MUST FOLLOW CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE

The Attorney-General warned that allowing the NJC to assume functions constitutionally assigned to the State JSC would undermine the integrity of the judicial appointment process and compromise the independence of the Commission.

He maintained that the issue is not a contest for institutional superiority between the NJC and the State JSC, but the need for each institution to respect the constitutional boundaries of its authority.

He further emphasised that the NJC’s responsibility to recommend a candidate to the Governor must not be confused with the power to control the independent selection and submission process of the State Commission.

The Attorney-General insisted that the ongoing appointment process must be conducted strictly in accordance with the Constitution, without interference that could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

For the Imo State Attorney-General, the constitutional position is clear: while the NJC has the responsibility to recommend a candidate to the Governor, it has no authority to dictate to the Imo State Judicial Service Commission the candidate whose name it must submit in the exercise of its independent constitutional mandate.

Share on Facebook