A Case for Adopting Open Contracting in Nigeria -By Seember Nyager

Seember Nyager

Last week, there was an outcry over a contract of 78 Million Naira for the upgrade of the website of the former governor of Lagos State. In response to the outrage that followed, the former governor publicly clarified the scope of the contract by providing a breakdown of costs for the website and for services that accompanied the website. The statement by the former governor, has become the strongest case yet that illustrates why Nigeria requires an open contracting system.

In his response to the 78 Million Naira website contract, The former governor stated that:

As far as the website contract is concerned, yes there was a contract. It went through procurement and was approved by the Government agency authorised to do so.  One of the services was an “upgrade” quoted for N12.5 million but awarded for N12 million. There were other services that were new like a handover countdown clock, mobile Apps for Google, IOS and Ipad , Microsoft, Research in Motion (Rim Blackberry) which the existing website did not have , and annual maintenance and cost for hosting the site.  It was for all these services that the contract was issued for N78 million which the Lagos State procurement agency approved on the technical advise of the Ministry of Science and Technology who are the Government adviser on such matters. In publishing this award as the Government tradition under my watch, the procurement agency’s website summarised it as “upgrade” only and which was the suspected “smoking gun”.

The practice by the Lagos State Government of publishing awarded contracts on the website of the Lagos state procurement agency is a step in the right direction that several other states ought to follow. However, it is important to recognize the value in making information on the contracting process sufficiently clear. The clarity provided by the former governor in his response to the outrage could have formed part of information that was obtainable on each contract. Whilst there can be a “summarized title” to every procurement process, there is still need to provide a description of the contract so that its scope is sufficiently clear to all stakeholders.

The discourse around the website contract would have probably been different if it included a description of the contract as the former governor had later explained.  Perhaps the discussions would have focused more on the possibility of utilizing those resources to create a more robust, easily navigable site that links various stages in the contracting process in a timely manner or the need to publish well-categorized, searchable data on every contracting process; and in a way that enhances the level of discourse and participation.

The anxiety and outrage that was expressed at the contract sum may seem justifiable in the light of over-inflated contracts across Nigeria. The trend has been that the more ambiguous or summarized the scope of a contract, the easier it is, for such a contract to be manipulated in terms of cost and in terms of service delivery expectations. But it would be more difficult to manipulate a contract whose specifications are clearly listed and publicly available. Taking the time to develop such systems would enable informed participation that contributes to improved governance of public resources and, consequently, better public services.  This is what lies at the heart of Open Contracting.

This article is a contribution to the #GoingLocal Project that is implemented with support from Omidyar and which seeks to link budget and contracting data in Nigeria.