An investigation into the Court of Appeal’s vehicle procurement contracts, valued at nearly ₦4.8 billion, has raised questions about the bidding process, the representation of multiple companies by the same individuals and the circumstances surrounding the award and payment requests.
The procurement exercise, conducted in 2025, involved three lots with a combined contract value of ₦4,770,131,999.94.
The largest contract, worth ₦3,896,874,999.94, was reportedly awarded to Hazdokas West Africa Limited for the supply of 25 Toyota Land Cruiser Prado vehicles.
A major concern identified in the investigation relates to the technical bid-opening exercise held on May 20, 2025, at the Court of Appeal Training Room in Abuja.
According to the report, a man identified as Yahaya Hussaini signed the attendance register as the representative of three companies: HDM Global Limited, Hazdokas Limited and May Eagle Motors.
Another individual, Michael Eze, was listed as the representative of two companies, Kefiano Motors and EPI Mgt Ltd.
The investigation questioned whether the companies participated independently, given that the same individuals represented multiple bidders. It, however, noted that this circumstance alone does not establish common ownership, collusion or procurement fraud.
The report also raised concerns over the exclusion of Kojo Motors Limited from the list of companies shortlisted after the technical evaluation.
Although the company reportedly participated in the bid-opening exercise, it was not among the firms selected to proceed to the next stage. The investigation alleged that Kojo Motors was not given a formal explanation for its exclusion despite seeking clarification.
The development was examined against provisions of the Public Procurement Act, 2007, which require transparency in competitive bidding and communication of reasons for disqualification when requested.
Questions over ₦3.9bn payment request
Further questions have emerged over the timing of a payment request submitted by Hazdokas West Africa Limited.
The investigation reported that the Federal Judiciary Tenders Board approved the award of the ₦3.897 billion contract on June 27, 2025, with the contractor expected to deliver the 25 vehicles within four weeks of signing the agreement.
However, the company allegedly requested payment of the entire contract sum on the same day the award was approved, stating that all 25 vehicles had already been supplied.
The timing has raised questions about how the vehicles could have been delivered and declared ready for payment on the date the contract was awarded, despite the stipulated delivery period.
The investigation did not establish whether the payment request was approved or whether the contractor received the money.
It called for the examination of the contract agreement, delivery notes, inspection and acceptance certificates, payment records and the court’s vehicle inventory to establish what actually happened.
The report also cited allegations that some delivery and store receipts were prepared in the names of Court of Appeal employees who were reportedly unaware that they had been listed as recipients or signatories.
If established, the allegation could raise concerns about the reliability of the court’s delivery and inventory records.
Vehicle specifications, pricing under scrutiny
The investigation further identified an apparent difference between the vehicle specifications contained in the technical evaluation notice and those stated in the award letter.
It reported that the technical evaluation notice described the vehicles under Lot 1C as 2024-model Toyota Land Cruiser Prados, while the subsequent award letter reportedly specified 2025-model Toyota Prado VX vehicles.
The reason for the change was not established in the documents examined.
The contract sum of almost ₦3.9 billion for 25 vehicles translates to an average of approximately ₦155.87 million per vehicle.
The investigation cautioned that the figure alone does not prove overpricing, as the assessment would need to take account of the vehicles’ specifications, taxes, delivery expenses, accessories and warranty arrangements.
It nevertheless called for disclosure of the market assessment and pricing considerations used to determine the contract value.
Other issues raised included the eligibility documents submitted by participating companies, alleged discrepancies in some corporate records and questions about the role of a retired former head of the Court of Appeal’s Procurement Department in the procurement process.
The investigation cited a 2017 circular from the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation concerning the performance of procurement functions by officers outside the professional procurement cadre.
It called for clarification on whether the official’s continued involvement complied with applicable administrative requirements.
Calls for independent investigation
The procurement exercise took place during the tenure of the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem. However, the investigation cautioned that the timing of the procurement does not establish that she personally directed, approved or participated in any alleged irregularity.
It also reported that efforts to obtain responses from the President of the Court of Appeal and the Federal Judiciary Tenders Board were unsuccessful before publication.
Among the questions requiring answers are why one individual represented three companies, the reasons for Kojo Motors’ exclusion, the basis for changing the vehicle specifications and whether the vehicles were delivered, inspected and formally accepted.
The investigation also sought clarification on whether the payment request for the ₦3.897 billion contract was approved and whether the money was eventually disbursed.
It called on relevant oversight bodies, including the National Assembly’s committees, the Bureau of Public Procurement and appropriate anti-corruption agencies, to examine the allegations and supporting documents.
The report stressed that officials and companies named in the investigation should have an opportunity to respond, while distinguishing administrative lapses from evidence capable of establishing criminal wrongdoing.
It maintained that the central issue was whether the nearly ₦4.8 billion procurement complied with public procurement laws, ensured fair competition and delivered value for public funds.
The allegations remain subject to verification, and the investigation did not establish a finding of procurement fraud or criminal misconduct.
You must be logged in to post a comment.