By Ebinum Samuel
The Human Rights Network (HRN-Nigeria) has petitioned the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr Ola Olukoyede, urging the anti-graft agency to investigate alleged procurement fraud, conflict of interest, and diversion of public funds at the National Institute of Construction Technology and Management (NICTM), Uromi, Edo State.
In the petition signed by the organisation’s Executive Director, Comrade Nura Mukhtar Kanya, on behalf of a concerned citizen, Hon. Prince Iyoha Jacob of Royal Crown Prince Runner Ltd, the group called on the EFCC to conduct a comprehensive forensic investigation into the institute’s procurement and financial activities.
HRN urged the Commission to examine procurement and financial records, question all implicated individuals, trace and recover allegedly diverted funds, freeze relevant bank accounts linked to the institute, suspend ongoing payments where necessary, and prosecute anyone found culpable.
According to the petition, “The scale and pattern of the alleged misconduct indicate a coordinated scheme to undermine public procurement processes and divert public funds.”
The organisation further urged the Commission “to act swiftly to prevent further losses and ensure accountability.”
Comrade Kanya said HRN intervened because of its mandate to protect citizens where fairness, justice, and accountability in public institutions are threatened.
He said the allegations at NICTM were too serious to ignore.
The petition alleged a pattern of conflict of interest, insider dealings, and financial inducement in the award of contracts and consultancy appointments at the institute.
“There is strong evidence of conflict of interest, including close personal relationships between decision-makers and contractors, use of proxies and associates in contract execution, and non-transparent and restricted decision-making processes,” the petition stated.
It added that the alleged actions “constitute criminal conspiracy and abuse of office.”
At the centre of the allegations is a consultancy engagement in which a consultant allegedly demanded approximately ₦64 million for services rendered to the institute.
According to the petition, more than ₦40 million had already been paid and allegedly “shared among those involved.”
The petition also referred to additional contract payments running into hundreds of millions of naira, alleging that portions of the funds were channelled back to individuals connected with the procurement process.
It further claimed that fencing and electrical projects at the institute were “allegedly awarded without due process, poorly executed, or abandoned, and used as channels for diversion of public funds.”
The petition listed several members of staff and companies allegedly involved in procurement processes covering recording studio equipment, ICT equipment, utility vehicles, fencing, and electrical contracts.
According to the petition, some of the individuals acted in “concert to manipulate procurement processes and divert public funds for personal enrichment.”
HRN argued that the alleged conduct could amount to violations of the EFCC (Establishment) Act 2004, the Public Procurement Act 2007, the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000, provisions of the Criminal Code Act relating to official corruption and conspiracy, and the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
The petition referenced an internal query issued by the Rector of NICTM, Dr O. B. Agbadua, to the institute’s Acting Head of Procurement, Mr Omonzokpea Abraham Omiemen.
The query, dated March 24, 2026, accused the procurement officer of repeated professional misconduct.
According to the Rector: “Despite the numerous queries you have received over your unprofessional conduct and misconduct, it seems you have not shown any seriousness to change for the better.”
The Rector alleged that during a bid opening on March 23, 2026, the Bursar observed that Omiemen allowed a contractor to assist in publishing an advertisement for projects at the institute without informing management.
The query further stated: “It is unprofessional for you to contact a contractor on an issue that borders on your job without informing the Rector.”
The procurement officer was directed to explain within 48 hours why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.
In a written response dated March 25, 2026, Omiemen denied all allegations of misconduct.
He wrote: “I wish to most respectfully state that the allegation that I have been unprofessional in executing my lawful duties is false and most unfounded. I have carried out my lawful duties diligently to the best of my ability in the most professional way.”
He also denied allowing a contractor to handle the publication of procurement advertisements.
According to him: “I never knew the said contractor until you personally introduced him to me.”
Omiemen further claimed the contractor informed him that the Rector had personally granted the contractor an Approval in Principle (AIP).
He requested an independent investigation to determine who collected the Approval in Principle from the TETFund office.
“I will respectfully request that an investigation be carried out to ascertain who collected the AIP at the TETFUND office. I believe that would help to resolve all these doubts and false accusation sir.”
He also alleged that he had previously questioned similar procurement procedures in November 2025 and was issued a query after challenging what he described as an illegal process.
He concluded: “Disciplinary action should not be taken against me because I have not done anything wrong. I have carried out my job diligently and most professionally to the best of my knowledge and ability.”
Under Nigeria’s Public Procurement Act 2007 and related financial regulations, consultancy services in federal institutions are expected to follow prescribed procedures, including documented needs assessments, budgetary approvals, competitive bidding, transparent evaluation, contract execution, and certified payment processes.
Procurement experts generally consider the absence of competitive bidding, poor documentation, conflict of interest, and payments without evidence of completed work as procurement red flags requiring investigation.
