BPP logo
I read with interest a recent piece by Mohammed Bougei Attah, a social worker, anti-corruption professional and National Coordinator of the Procurement Observation and Advocacy Initiative, titled “Misrepresentation, Interpretation about Certificates and BPP’s Professional Certification in Procurement”, published in Blueprint on 21 May 2025.
I also took note of another editorial intervention, “The Conflicting Role of BPP,” by Hussaini Abdullahi, published in the Daily Trust of 1 July 2025. Both pieces, in my view, are in pari materia, the latter building on the former to consolidate a common theme: the alleged usurpation of the functions of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply Management of Nigeria (CIPSMN) by the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP).
While it is encouraging to see public interest in procurement reform, especially as Nigeria strives to institutionalise transparency and professionalism in the public service, these interventions, although spirited, rest on a misreading of the law.
That fundamental misreading of the relevant provisions of the extant law establishing the BPP must now be corrected, with fidelity to the facts.
To be clear, the BPP is not operating outside its legal boundaries. On the contrary, its current efforts in training and certification are firmly grounded in the Public Procurement Act (PPA) of 2007.
The law is unambiguous, and so is the Bureau’s mandate. I invite readers to reflect on the letter and spirit of the Act:
● Section 5(c) empowers the Bureau to “subject to thresholds as may be set by the Council, certify Federal procurement prior to the award of contract.”
● Section 5(k) mandates the Bureau to “organise training and development programmes for procurement professionals.”
● Section 5(s) authorises it to “coordinate relevant training programmes to build institutional capacity.”
These are not aspirational clauses. They are binding provisions crafted to build capacity, deepen institutional integrity, and equip procurement professionals with the tools to safeguard the public purse.
Applying the literal rule of statutory interpretation, it is evident that the lawmakers did not intend these core functions to be devolved to another entity.
The Bureau’s certification framework, now being implemented through the Nigeria Procurement Certification Platform under the Sustainable Procurement, Environmental and Social Standards Enhancement (SPESSE) Project, a World Bank-sponsored initiative, is a direct execution of these legal responsibilities. It is not a deviation from the law; it is the law in motion.
The programme is designed to ensure that procurement officers across Ministries, Departments, and Agencies are not only trained but also certified according to rigorous standards rooted in both national and international best practices.
It must be reiterated that the BPP is not attempting to supplant the role of the CIPSMN. The two institutions have distinct mandates, and there is ample room, indeed a pressing need, for both to function as guided by their respective enabling Acts.
While CIPSMN focuses on regulating the broader profession, the BPP’s remit is firmly situated within the public procurement ecosystem. Its goal is to build a cadre of competent public procurement professionals who understand public interest, compliance, and value-for-money principles. This is the niche the Bureau is legally and strategically positioned to serve.
Moreover, the Bureau’s collaboration with global institutions such as the World Bank and the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply (CIPS-UK) is not a case of institutional overreach.
Rather, it reflects a commitment to Nigeria’s ambition to modernise public procurement. These partnerships bring technical rigour, international benchmarking, and system-wide credibility to our reform efforts.
While public discourse must accommodate diverse viewpoints, when the law is explicit, our collective responsibility is to engage it truthfully.
Misrepresenting the BPP’s certification drive as overreach does a disservice to the institutions working diligently to lift Nigeria’s procurement landscape out of mediocrity and into a future of competence and professionalism.
Thus, in the spirit of national development and institutional clarity, this rejoinder should be read as both a respectful correction and a call for adherence to the clear provisions of the law.
Let us ground our arguments in legislation, not in supposition. Let us elevate the conversation beyond territorialism, focusing instead on what truly matters—ensuring that public procurement in Nigeria serves the people, saves money, and sustains trust.
Finally, since Mr Attah made reference to an earlier piece I authored, questioning my judgement in equating the BPP with the Federal Government while advocating for its independence, I must respond by stating that the BPP operates under the Presidency. It is part and parcel of the Presidency. Indeed, it is an agency established to advise the President on procurement matters.
I understand Mr Attah’s desire to see the Bureau operate independently of the Presidency, much like INEC or the ICPC, which were envisioned to have constitutional autonomy. But, as the Public Procurement Act (PPA) of 2007 makes it clear, that was not the intention of the lawmakers in the case of the BPP.
■ Sufuyan Ojeifo is a member of the Nigerian Guild of Editors and Editor-in-Chief of THE CONCLAVE online newspaper@ www.theconclaveng.com
