“Professionalism Demands More Than Verbal Assurances” – MFD To NPA Amid Fraud Allegations

A civic democratic and accountability group, The Movement For Democracy (MFD), has urged the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) to provide more clarity on recent issues surrounding its financial management and procurement practices.

This is coming after the NPA came out to refute reports alleging multi-billion-naira irregularities in its operations, which the agency described as baseless and lacking merit.

While the NPA stated that its activities are governed by thorough oversight from the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, the Budget Office of the Federation, and the National Assembly, the MFD, via a press statement by its national coordinator, Osaze Samuel, revealed that the Nigerian Ports Authority’s explanation is not sufficient enough to ease public concerns.

The group asked the NPA to make it clear if any supplementary budgets were created to aid projects like dredging/marine equipment procurement, and if such budgets were formally approved by the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning.

According to The Movement For Democracy (MFD), while they appreciate the NPA for quickly responding to the allegations for the sake of concerned citizens, Nigerians need more details concerning the approval process for the dredging of the Warri Escravos Channel.

It 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,” it read.

Osaze revealed that the NPA has more explaining to do as regards why they opted for a restricted emergency procurement process, rather than a competitive open tender, which is a clear violation of Sections 24–27 of the Public Procurement Act (PPA), 2007.

He is of the opinion that, because professionalism demands more than verbal assurances, publication of a contractor payment schedule and a detailed explanation of pending files within the Finance Department are required for total clarity.

“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,” he added.