Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has ordered the Attorney General of the Federation, Bureau of Public Procurement and PPP Advisories Consortium not to take any further step in the appointment of a consultant to monitor the spending of $300m Abacha loot that was recovered from United States and the Bailiwick of Jersey.
The court gave the order on Tuesday, directing all parties to the suit filed by PPP Advisories Consortium to maintain status quo ante bellum, that is, not to take any steps whatsoever that would affect the subject matter of disputes before the court pending the hearing of motion on notice.
PPP Advisories Consortium who claimed to have scored the highest point out of the 4 shortlisted pre-qualified firms among the 17 firms that responded to federal government’s request for a firm to monitor how it will spend the Abacha $300m recovered loot took the AGF and Bureau of Public Procurement to Court over unfair handling of the bidding.
In their documents in Court, PPP Advisories Consortium claimed that after the evaluation of the financial proposals of the four prequalified consultants, it secured the highest combined Technical and Financial score and therefore ought to have been awarded the contract instead of Cleen Foundation, which got the least combined Technical and Financial score among the four prequalified consultants.
At the resumed hearing of the matter on Tuesday, the Lawyer to the claimant (PPP Advisories Consortium) Dr Daniel Bwala, urged the court to hear the motion on notice for injunction to restrain the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice and the Bureau of Public Procurement from taking any steps in the appointment of a consultant for the monitoring of the implementation of the Tripartite Agreement among the Federal Government of Nigeria, the United States of America and the Bailiwick of Jersey.
The first Defendant, Attorney General of the Federation was not represented in Court though he has been served with the summons as well as the hearing notice twice.
The lawyer to the third Defendant (Bureau of Public Enterprises), who was present in court, urged the court for adjournment to enable him file their defence.
Lawyer to the Claimant, Bwala, informed the court that “unless the court makes an order for status quo to be maintained, the Federal government may proceed and award the consultancy contract to Cleen Foundation who scored the lowest combined Technical and Financial score among the four prequalified consultants.”
“This action if allowed to take place will most likely dent the image and name of Nigeria in the eyes of the international community and make a mokery of the requirements of competitiveness and transparency required in all Federal Government procurements as outlined by the Bureau of Public Procurement Act, 2007,” he said.
The $300 million in question, which was repatriated to Nigeria is specifically to be used as part of the funding for the completion of the Second Niger Bridge, the Abuja – Kano dualization and the Lagos – Ibadan Expressway.
The Federal Government of Nigeria, the United States Government and the Bailiwick of Jersey had entered into a tripartite agreement for the implementation of the $300 million Abacha loot on the condition that the funds would be used for the purpose of the three major road projects aforementioned.
Based on the agreement the federal government had sent out an invitation for consultants to submit proposals to the Federal Ministry of Justice, whereupon, the claimant, PPP Advisories Consortium, was among the four prequalified firms.
After the evaluation of the financial proposals of the four prequalified consultants, PPP Advisories Consortium secured the highest combined Technical and Financial score and therefore ought to have been awarded the contract instead of Cleen Foundation, which got the least combined Technical and Financial score among the four prequalified consultants.
The procurement panel of Federal government arbitrarily disqualified the claimant and recommended the firm that came 4th (Cleen Foundation) as the preferred bidder to be awarded the contract.
The claimant described the decision as both curious and unacceptable; and had approached the Court, challenging the legality or otherwise of the federal government’s decision, having regard to the tripartite agreement, and Nigeria’s extant procurement laws, processes and procedures.
The case has been adjourned to January 21, for hearing.
Stay ahead with the latest updates! Join The ConclaveNG on WhatsApp and Telegram for real-time news alerts, breaking stories, and exclusive content delivered straight to your phone. Don’t miss a headline — subscribe now!
