Government be it at the federal, state or local government level strives to provide good governance through the maintenance of law and order, as well as prioritization of the welfare and security of the citizens. To actualise most of its responsibilities to the people, the government also initiate and execute programmes and projects to accelerate development through issuance of contracts to trigger economic growth and strengthen the country’s economy.
For several years, the issue of delays or abandonment of government projects had been a challenge in Nigeria. It is quite disturbing because the non-execution or outright abandonment of programmes and projects meant to develop the country and transform the peoples lives, not only denies citizens of the benefit of such projects but constitutes waste of valuable resources.
The recent private bill before the House of Representatives was as a result of the spate of uncompleted or abandoned government projects across the country. The proposed bill seeks to amend the Public Procurement Act, CAP. P44 Laws of the Federation,2004; otherwise referred to as the Principal Act., and the aim is to impose sanctions on contractors for delays or abandonment of government projects.
Amendment of the Principal Act, seeks to insert new Section 37 after the existing Section as follows; Section 37 notwithstanding any provision in the contract of agreement, where a contractor fails to deliver a contract within the target period with express permission from the relevant authority, the contractor shall be entitled to grace of ninety(90) days after which shall be liable to pay a damage not exceeding five(5) percent of the contract sum.
As much as the bill seems noble, it must be recognized that the challenges in the contract environment in Nigeria is not solely caused by the contractors.
Some of the reasons for the delays in the completion or abandonment of government projects have been attributed to corruption, political patronage and inadequate funding of projects by the government.
Worried by the expected consequences of the bill, stakeholders have opposed the bill, declaring that what the proposed amendment seeks to provide are typically embedded in contractual agreements, maintaining that the Act already provides a robust legal framework and that issues related to contractor misconduct are adequately addressed within the terms of individual contracts.
As the controversy over the proposed bill rages, we call on the government to properly address the issues of corruption in the award of contracts in the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), as well as the challenge of political patronage carried out by those in authority. Activities of corrupt government officials in the award of contracts and attitude of those in authority in influencing contract awards to their political cronies most times encourages delay and abandonment of contracts.
The truth is that government cannot completely absolve itself from delays in contract execution, because there have been instances where release of funds for completed projects have been delayed even when certificates have been raised for jobs done. Delays in funding from the procuring entity ultimately lead to delays in project completion, making the procuring entity responsible for any setbacks. This is because the timely release of funds for awarded contracts is critical for the successful completion of projects.
We advocate that government should reconsider its stand on the proposed bill and focus more efforts in ensuring the proper implementation and enforcement of the existing laws, rather than pursuing amendments that do not address the core issues such as needs assessments and project design to proper budgeting, contractor selection, and ultimately effective contract execution and project implementation.
