The Impact of Corruption and Self-Interest in Public Procurement and Contract Processes
Public procurement and the contract process are critical pillars of governance that directly influence the delivery of public services and the overall development of a nation. However, when these processes are marred by corruption and self-interest, they inevitably lead to bad governance, stunted growth, and the erosion of public trust. Nigeria serves as a poignant example of how these issues manifest and affect the broader society.
In recent years, it has become increasingly difficult for individuals outside the ruling class to access opportunities to deliver or procure significant contracts or services. This scenario can be likened to the biblical analogy of a camel passing through the eye of a needle—practically impossible. The situation is exacerbated when a new government comes into power and abruptly dismisses existing contractors or service providers, not because of incompetence, but simply because they do not belong to the ruling party or are not part of the inner circle. This practice undermines the very foundation of meritocracy and leads to a deterioration in the quality of services provided.
Discover Unlimited Earning Potential with Our Peer-to-Peer Model!
Unlock various opportunities to generate income seamlessly while connecting with like-minded individuals. Our peer-to-peer model empowers you to:
✔️ Build a sustainable income stream
✔️ Collaborate and grow within a supportive community
✔️ Leverage innovative tools to maximise your earning potential
Don’t wait—step into a world of possibilities today!
For more information visit:
A clear example of the consequences of such practices is evident in Nigeria’s infrastructure sector. Contracts for road construction, for instance, are often awarded based on personal connections rather than on the competence of the contractors. As a result, many roads remain in poor condition, riddled with potholes and in constant need of repair. The lack of proper oversight and accountability further compounds the problem, as those tasked with monitoring these projects often turn a blind eye due to their involvement in the corrupt practices themselves.
The power sector in Nigeria also serves as a glaring example of the negative impact of corruption in public procurement. Despite numerous contracts awarded to improve electricity generation and distribution, the sector remains plagued by inefficiency and poor service delivery. This is largely due to the fact that contracts are often awarded to entities that offer bribes or have personal ties to those in power, rather than those with the requisite expertise and capacity to deliver. Consequently, millions of Nigerians continue to suffer from unreliable power supply, which in turn stifles economic growth and development.
This phenomenon is not unique to Nigeria. Globally, countries that allow corruption and self-interest to dominate their public procurement processes experience similar outcomes. In South Africa, for instance, the controversial arms deal scandal of the late 1990s and early 2000s highlighted how corruption in procurement can lead to financial losses, public outrage, and long-term damage to the country’s reputation. The arms deal, which involved billions of dollars, was marred by allegations of bribery and resulted in contracts being awarded to companies with questionable credentials, ultimately delivering subpar equipment and services.
In India, the Commonwealth Games scandal of 2010 is another example of how corruption in public procurement can lead to disastrous outcomes. The Games, which were intended to showcase India as a rising global power, were overshadowed by widespread corruption in the awarding of contracts. Many of these contracts were awarded to companies that lacked the necessary experience and expertise, leading to poor construction quality, delays, and a tarnished international image.
The common thread in these examples is the prioritisation of personal gain over public interest. When contracts are awarded based on connections, bribes, or political allegiance rather than competence and merit, the quality of services and infrastructure deteriorates. This not only hampers national development but also deepens public distrust in government institutions.
For Nigeria to reverse this trend, it is imperative to implement robust reforms in the public procurement process. This includes enforcing transparency, ensuring that contracts are awarded based on merit, and holding those involved in corrupt practices accountable. Only by prioritising the public good over personal interests can the country hope to achieve sustainable development and restore confidence in its governance structures.
To wrap it up, the integrity of public procurement and contract processes is crucial to the delivery of quality public services and the overall development of any nation. Corruption and self-interest must be rooted out to ensure that the best candidates—those who are competent and capable—are entrusted with the responsibility of driving the nation forward. Otherwise, the cycle of bad governance and underdevelopment will persist, to the detriment of the entire society.
Multiple Taxation and Its Impact on Governance: A Case Study of Nigeria
In Nigeria, and indeed many parts of the world, the issue of multiple taxation is a significant impediment to economic growth and good governance. The fundamental problem lies in the fact that many of our leaders lack the capacity for what can be termed as creative taxation—a system where the government actively engages in productive ventures and channels existing resources towards generating wealth, which can then be taxed in a meaningful way.
Creative taxation involves the government not just as a collector of taxes, but as an enabler of economic activity. By supporting and investing in productive sectors, the government can unlock new funds for development, which in turn can lead to increased tax revenues. Taxation should ideally be a consequence of economic growth, not a hindrance to it. However, when a government fails to support the productive sectors and resorts instead to excessive and burdensome taxation, it is a clear sign of poor governance.
Unfortunately, in Nigeria, our leaders often resort to taxing businesses and individuals who are already struggling under difficult economic conditions. This approach is not only short-sighted but also detrimental to the economy. Businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), are the backbone of any economy. When these businesses are overtaxed without the necessary incentives or infrastructure to support them, they are unable to thrive. This is akin to the proverbial scenario of milking a cow without feeding it; eventually, the cow will die, and there will be no more milk. This analogy can be extended to the tale of the goose that lays the golden eggs—if you kill the goose out of greed, you lose the source of your wealth.
Examples from global communities illustrate the damaging effects of multiple taxation. In countries where the government imposes excessive taxes without providing the necessary support for businesses to flourish, the result is often economic stagnation or decline. For instance, in some developing countries, multiple layers of taxation at the federal, state, and local levels have crippled industries and stifled innovation. Businesses are either forced to close or move their operations to countries with more favourable tax regimes.
A pertinent example is Nigeria, where the overlapping taxation by federal, state, and local governments creates an environment of uncertainty and fear among entrepreneurs. Many innovative and business-oriented individuals are hesitant to start new ventures because of the exorbitant taxes and levies that must be paid before they can even begin operations. This creates a vicious cycle where economic activity is stifled, leading to fewer jobs, reduced incomes, and ultimately, lower tax revenues for the government.
In contrast, countries that have adopted more creative and supportive tax policies have seen significant economic growth. For instance, Rwanda, often cited as a model of economic reform in Africa, has implemented policies that simplify the tax system and reduce the burden on businesses. By doing so, Rwanda has attracted foreign investment, encouraged local entrepreneurship, and achieved impressive economic growth rates.
In Nigeria, however, the current trend of overburdening businesses and individuals with multiple taxes is a clear indicator of bad governance. It reflects a lack of foresight and an insensitivity to the challenges faced by businesses. If this trend continues, it will only lead to the further decline of our economy, as businesses close down or relocate, unemployment rises, and social unrest becomes inevitable.
The government must begin to ask critical questions: If we want to raise taxes, what have we done to support the businesses we are taxing? Have we provided the necessary infrastructure, incentives, and support to ensure these businesses can thrive? If not, then we are merely setting ourselves up for failure.
A tax regime that overburdens its citizens without providing the necessary support is not only ineffective but also unsustainable. It is crucial that Nigerian leaders, and leaders globally, understand that taxation should be a tool for development, not a weapon of economic destruction. Only by fostering a supportive environment for businesses can we ensure sustainable economic growth and, ultimately, good governance.