By Secrets Reporters
A ₦14.1 million payment for Post-UTME screening software at the University of Abuja has raised concerns over the documentation behind the deal, with no contract agreement, Memorandum of Understanding or Service Level Agreement produced to support the engagement.
The University paid ₦14,104,000 to a consultant for the technology used to process candidates during its Post-UTME screening exercise. However, the records available did not include presidential approval for the arrangement, while no tax deduction was shown against the payment. The transaction was examined under Sections 24(1) and 25(2)(ii) of the Public Procurement Act and Treasury Circular TRY A6&B6/2019, which requires presidential approval for the relevant consultancy arrangement.
The institution defended its decision to engage the consultant, describing the transaction as a one-off arrangement to acquire the software needed for its admission screening process. “The engagement of consultants for screening of students on Post-UTME followed due process and was a one-off transaction in order to acquire the necessary software… The University has since been using this software to process Post-UTME,” management stated.
Moreover, the University’s explanation points to the software’s continued use as justification for the expenditure. Also, the availability of a working system does not answer questions about the process through which the consultant was selected or the terms under which the University acquired the technology. No contract agreement, MOU or Service Level Agreement was produced in the records relating to the transaction. These documents would ordinarily establish the obligations of both parties, the services to be delivered, the payment terms and the standards expected of the provider. Without them, the formal basis of the engagement remains unclear from the available documentation.
Futhermore, the transaction also raises a question about the approval required for the consultancy arrangement. Treasury Circular TRY A6&B6/2019 was cited as requiring presidential approval, but no such approval was on file for the ₦14,104,000 payment. The absence of the approval in the available records leaves unanswered whether the necessary authorisation was obtained before the consultant was engaged and the money paid.
The risks identified in connection with the transaction include the engagement of an incompetent consultant, loss of government revenue and diversion of government funds. These are potential risks associated with the concerns raised and do not, by themselves, establish that the consultant was incompetent or that the money was diverted. Another issue concerns the treatment of tax on the payment. The records did not show that tax had been deducted from the ₦14,104,000 paid to the consultant. The missing tax documentation raises questions about whether the applicable tax obligations were fulfilled and whether the University retained the necessary evidence to support the transa
ction.
Follow Secrets Reporters on WhatsApp: join the channel for every exclusive the moment it publishes.
