Audit flags Boko’s preferred direct tendering
Spira Tlhankane | Monday May 11, 2026 06:00
Boko appointed Alvarez & Marsal Middle East Limited (“A&M”) to provide forensic audit services for the country. Now the latest audit pulls no punches on the direct tendering method, which has in the past been challenged by the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) and the Ministry of Finance.
The forensic audit also reveals a more troubling story: contracts quietly steered, rules bent, and a procurement system that, in too many cases, stopped competition. At the centre of it all is a pattern of ‘direct awards’ which the auditors have highlighted several times. “The findings included repeated use of non-competitive procurement, weakly justified direct awards, emergency procurement, and tender manipulation. A consistent pattern was the repeated use of non-competitive or weakly controlled procurement methods. Across multiple entities, there was overuse of direct appointments, reliance on emergency procurement without a clear basis, use of quotation processes beyond appropriate thresholds, and repeated departures from open and competitive tendering,” read the summary report.
Across ministries and State entities, the Alvarez & Marsal investigators also indicated that direct awards and emergency procurement reduced competition and scrutiny, particularly where the justification for non-competitive procurement was weak or undocumented. This comes at a time when direct procurement, where a government entity purchases directly from a single supplier without a competitive bidding process, has already caused panic in the tendering sector. Contractors already fear that competition will be eroded while corruption is promoted.
In theory, direct awards are supposed to be rare, used only when time is critical or competition isn’t feasible. In practice, the audit suggests they became routine, and one of the most striking findings is how often urgency was used as a justification. Auditors flagged reliance on emergency procurement without a clear basis, suggesting that the label of emergency was sometimes less about crisis and more about convenience. In multiple entities, emergency procedures allowed officials to bypass standard tendering rules entirely, fast-tracking contracts with limited oversight.
Furthermore, the audit documents cases of changes to scope without retendering, relaxation of technical criteria, and override of evaluation outcomes. In some instances, bidders who had already lost were brought back into contention, while in others, contracts were awarded to companies that had not been properly evaluated. The report paints a picture of a system where rules could shift after the game had already started.
Auditors also noted repeated use of the same suppliers and apparent links between competing bidders, alongside indicators of fronting, collusion and conflict-linked procurement risk. “The findings also indicated that procurement irregularities were connected to favouritism, political or administrative interference, insider access, fronting or collusive behaviour. Recurrence of the same contractors or suppliers, repetition of the same officials across high-risk procurement, repeated threshold-splitting, and habitual use of non-competitive routes all pointed to control environments in which formal compliance mechanisms could be manipulated and bypassed. In some entities, non-competitive procurement had become normalised rather than exceptional,” the summary report stated.
The auditors emphasised that procurement is one of the main points at which public money is converted into commitments, contracts and payments. Therefore, they pointed out that where procurement controls are weak in design, easy to bypass, and poorly monitored after the event, the system becomes highly vulnerable to collusion, favouritism, inflated pricing, non-delivery and kickback arrangements. “That is one of the reasons the forensic audits identified such a substantial population of matters requiring further investigation. Even when competitive processes began properly, they didn’t always stay that way”, argued the auditors.
Following that, the investigators recommended a ‘procurement reform’ which they say should reduce discretion, restore challenge and make abuse harder. They highlighted that procurement was one of the clearest areas requiring reform and, in all audits where procurement was reviewed, this was the principal route through which financial exposure, poor value for money and suspected corruption arose. “The reform priorities are redesigning the procurement model to reduce excessive concentration of authority, allow for segregation of duties and create mechanisms for oversight; reform citizen empowerment and preference rules, tighten controls over direct awards, emergency procurement, variations and advance payments to ensure fair competition; strengthen contract enforcement and clawback mechanisms; and professionalise procurement capability,” the report stated.
The investigators added that the concentration of authority in the Accounting Officer should be reconsidered. They pointed out that efficiency is important, but complex or high-value procurement should not depend primarily on one office-holder. They recommended that independent technical, legal, financial and procurement challenges should be built into the process before commitments are made.
“Immediate guidance should be issued while legislative or regulatory amendments for procurement are considered. That guidance should address direct awards, emergency procurement, variations, conflict declarations, beneficial ownership disclosure, advance payments and post-award changes. PPRA should also be supported to strengthen procurement audit activity, suspension and delisting mechanisms, contract reporting and monitoring of exemptions,” the auditors further recommended.
The procurement red flags in the audit come at a time when Boko still insists on doing away with the established open bidding in favour of direct tendering. Although tenderpreneurs have protested President Boko’s pronouncement on direct appointments, he has in the past noted that the normal tendering procedure is corrupt, and the whole practice makes him angrier. Since he took over the biggest office in the land in October 2024, Boko has not shied away from emphasising his intention to adopt direct appointments and ‘do away with outdated tendering regulations that he says delay progress. Boko maintains that he knows firsthand the corrupt world of tenders where cronies work together to cheat the system.
Last year, the Permanent Secretary (PS) in the Ministry of Finance told the parliamentary oversight body, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), that although the Procurement Act provides for direct appointment, the government’s position is that it prefers open bidding. Last year’s released Auditor General’s report on the country’s accounts for the year ending March 2022 noted that direct tendering constitutes an unfair advantage over other service providers who are not allowed to compete. Boko’s right-hand man, Ndaba Gaolathe, also differs in opinion, saying that direct appointment is the least preferred method in public procurement, as it stifles competition, which is a basic principle of public procurement.