An expert in public policy, Ndagi Bello El’Sudi, has thrown his weight behind President Bola Tinubu’s decision to withhold assent to the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply Management of Nigeria (CIPSMN) Establishment (Amendment) Bill.
He postulated that the proposed legislation contained provisions that could have undermined Nigeria’s public procurement framework and created conflicts with existing laws.
This was contained in a statement entitled: “Of CIPSMN’s Circus Show, Presidential Censure, and National Development,” El’Sudi said the President’s refusal to sign the bill was justified because several of its proposed amendments sought to confer powers on the institute that were beyond its statutory responsibilities.
According to him, media reports indicated that President Tinubu declined assent after identifying legal, ethical and operational concerns with the bill, including provisions that would have expanded the institute’s authority beyond professional certification into areas reserved for government regulators.
He said the proposed amendments would have empowered the institute to inspect organisations, sanction employers, undertake compliance and enforcement functions, and influence the appointment of procurement heads in organisations.
“The proposed amendments were full of irregularities and illogicalities. They sought to give the institute powers beyond its statutory mandate and effectively position it as the regulator of procurement practice in Nigeria,” he said.
El’Sudi argued that many of the proposed provisions directly conflicted with the Public Procurement Act (PPA) 2007, which established the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) as the federal agency responsible for regulating public procurement.
He specifically cited Section 1(c) of the proposed amendment, which he said conflicted with Section 5(k) of the Public Procurement Act that empowers the BPP to provide training, education and certification for procurement professionals.
According to him, another proposed amendment under Section 12 also ran contrary to international procurement standards and existing provisions of the Public Procurement Act.
“The bill sought to undermine existing laws, create institutional overlap and breed regulatory confusion,” he stated, adding that procurement regulation should remain within the legal framework already established by the Public Procurement Act.
The analyst also claimed that efforts to secure similar amendments had repeatedly failed over the years following opposition from relevant agencies and stakeholders.
According to him, previous attempts made in 2007, 2024 and 2025 were rejected after stakeholders identified legal inconsistencies and institutional conflicts embedded in the proposals.
He alleged that many procurement professionals were unaware that the amendment process was still being pursued, claiming that the proposal did not enjoy the support of a majority of members of the institute.
Quoting unnamed stakeholders, El’Sudi said several practitioners believed the amendment represented an attempt by a few individuals to assume control over procurement regulation in the country.
He alleged that the institute’s leadership had maintained a prolonged disagreement with the Bureau of Public Procurement over regulatory responsibilities.
According to him, the amendment bill reflected an attempt to expand the institute’s influence into areas legally assigned to the BPP.
Beyond the contents of the bill, El’Sudi raised concerns over the internal administration of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply Management of Nigeria.
He alleged that although the institute has a governing council comprising representatives of the Federal Ministries of Industry, Trade and Investment, Education and Finance, the council had not convened for several years.
He claimed that the institute had effectively remained under the control of two individuals for nearly two decades, alleging that they alternated leadership positions while key governance processes, including publication of the institute’s accounts and interpretation of its enabling law, had not been carried out.
The analyst also questioned how the amendment bill secured passage through both chambers of the National Assembly despite what he described as numerous contentious provisions.
He urged lawmakers to subject future amendment bills to more rigorous scrutiny, particularly where they could affect the mandates of existing statutory agencies.
“The legislature has a responsibility to ensure that laws are coherent, unambiguous and do not create conflicts among government institutions,” he said.
Providing historical context, El’Sudi recalled that Nigeria enacted the Public Procurement Act in 2007 following years of procurement irregularities and weak accountability in public spending.
He said the law established the Bureau of Public Procurement as the regulatory authority responsible for setting procurement standards, monitoring compliance, promoting transparency and ensuring value for money in government contracting.
According to him, the bureau has undergone significant reforms in recent years under its Director-General, Dr. Adebowale Adedokun.
He credited the agency with introducing digital procurement platforms, strengthening contract monitoring, enforcing sanctions against defaulting contractors and expanding public access to procurement information.