‘Be transparent in your financial and procurement processes’ – Group to NPA

The Movement For Democracy (MFD), a civic democratic and accountability group has called on the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) to provide greater clarity on recent concerns surrounding its financial management and procurement practices.

This follows the NPA’s recent dismissal of media reports alleging multi-billion-naira irregularities in its operations, which the agency described as spurious and lacking credibility.

In its official response, the NPA stated that its activities are governed by strict oversight from the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, the Budget Office of the Federation, and the National Assembly.

It also stressed that contracts and expenditures were executed in line with the Procurement Act, 2007 and that allegations regarding improper conduct were either misrepresentations or completely false.

However, the MFD, in a statement by its National Coordinator, Osaze Samuel, noted that the NPA’s statement did not sufficiently address several important public concerns.

In particular, the group asked the NPA to clarify whether any supplementary budgets were created to support projects such as dredging and marine equipment procurement and whether such budgets were formally approved by the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning.

The MFD also requested more detailed information about the approval process for the dredging of the Warri Escravos Channel.

Parts of the statement read: “While the MFD welcomes the NPA’s willingness to respond to public concerns, we find its rebuttal to be evasive, lacking in transparency, and disturbingly dismissive of serious allegations that touch on public accountability, fiscal discipline, and institutional integrity.

“In a democracy, public institutions are not only expected to act within the law but must also demonstrate a culture of openness and accountability, especially when confronted with grave concerns from the citizenry.

“Why did the NPA opt for a restricted emergency procurement process, instead of a competitive open tender, which is a clear violation of Sections 24–27 of the Public Procurement Act (PPA), 2007?

“Professionalism demands more than verbal assurances – it requires a publication of a contractor payment schedule and a breakdown of pending files (if any) stuck within the Finance Department.”

While the NPA referred to the use of emergency procurement procedures due to siltation concerns, the group questioned whether the project was reviewed and approved at a Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting and if a thorough survey was conducted to determine the scope of work required.

The group stressed the need for transparency and proactive disclosure from public institutions, particularly those handling significant national infrastructure and revenue streams.

Samuel reiterated that while the MFD supports infrastructural development in the maritime sector, public confidence can only be maintained through open engagement, independent verification, and a demonstrable commitment to accountability.

The MFD called on the NPA to consider publishing relevant project documentation, including contract details and payment records, to foster greater public trust.

‘Be transparent in your financial and procurement processes’ – Group to NPA