ReportsNG
The University of Abuja paid ₦80,025,620 to two consultants for an electronic collection system designed to handle student charges, but records relating to the engagement did not show evidence of competitive bidding, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or the required presidential approval. Revealed by ReportsNG
The payments were made in nine transactions for technology intended to support the collection and management of student payments. However, the absence of key procurement documents has raised questions about how the consultants were selected, the terms governing their engagement and the approvals obtained before public funds were committed to the arrangement.
The matter also involves ₦4,001,281 in Value Added Tax (VAT) that was not shown to have been deducted from the payments. The provisions cited in connection with the transaction include Sections 24(1) and 25(2)(ii) of the Public Procurement Act, alongside Treasury Circulars TRY/A1&B1/2015 and TRY A6&B6/2019, which require presidential approval for consultancy fees relating to revenue collection.
The University’s management defended the engagement, explaining that the consultants were brought in to improve student data collection and management. “In order to ensure proper data collection and management of Student Information, these consultants were engaged to assist the University. The University does not have the internal capacity to build such a system, hence the arrangement to have this cloud-based system,” management stated.
The explanation suggests that the University considered external expertise necessary to develop and operate the cloud-based platform. However, the need for technical support does not, by itself, establish that the procurement process and approval requirements were followed.
The outstanding questions concern how the two consultants were selected, whether the terms of their engagement were formally documented and whether the required approval for consultancy fees associated with revenue collection was obtained.
The ₦80,025,620 was disbursed through nine payments to two consultants for the electronic collection technology. Yet no evidence of competitive bidding or a signed MOU was available in the records described in the findings. Competitive bidding provides a process through which eligible service providers can be considered under applicable procurement rules. A formal agreement, meanwhile, establishes the obligations of the parties, the scope of the work and the terms under which payments are made.
Without the relevant documents, questions remain about the process used to engage the consultants and the contractual basis for the expenditure.
The issue is particularly significant because the system was connected to the collection of student charges, an area covered by the Treasury circulars cited in connection with the transaction. Those circulars require presidential approval for consultancy fees relating to revenue collection, but no such approval was on record.
Beyond the procurement documentation, the transaction raised a separate concern over ₦4,001,281 in VAT that was not shown to have been deducted. The VAT issue adds another layer to the questions surrounding the payments. While the consultants received a combined ₦80 million through nine transactions, the available records did not demonstrate that the required tax amount had been deducted.
The identified risks associated with the expenditure include diversion of public funds and loss of government funds. The concerns relate not only to the amount paid but also to the documentation supporting the engagement, compliance with approval requirements and the treatment of the tax associated with the payments.
With ₦80,025,620 paid across nine transactions and ₦4,001,281 in VAT not shown to have been deducted, the engagement raises substantial questions about the University’s procurement procedures and financial documentation. The central issue remains whether the University can demonstrate that the consultants’ engagement and the associated payments complied with the applicable rules.
