NEPZA: ₦10.4 Billion in Alleged Contract Irregularities Raises Procurement Compliance and Fraud Risk Concerns

A report published on October 27, 2026, alleges that the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority (NEPZA) paid ₦10.428 billion across three categories of procurement and financial irregularities during the 2021 and 2022 financial years, when Prof. Adesoji Adesugba was managing director. The reported findings raise questions about internal audit controls, competitive tendering, contract-splitting risks and compliance with Nigeria’s public procurement rules.

The report identifies ₦5.748 billion in payments processed through 44 payment vouchers without evidence of the mandatory prepayment audit checks, ₦3.792 billion across 40 contract vouchers for which the report says required competitive procurement documentation was absent, and ₦888.5 million involving six contracts allegedly divided across three companies for similar scopes of work.

The allegations are particularly relevant to public procurement compliance. Nigeria’s Financial Regulations 2009 prescribe internal audit requirements for payment vouchers, while the Public Procurement Act 2007 prohibits splitting procurement to circumvent applicable methods or approval thresholds. The reported circumstances could indicate weaknesses in preventive controls, tender evaluation, segregation of duties and oversight by the authority’s accounting officers.

There is also important institutional context. In January 2022, NEPZA publicly stated that it was cooperating with the Auditor-General’s Office over scrutiny of earlier financial transactions and said its management had strengthened procurement compliance and revived its anti-corruption unit in partnership with the ICPC. That response concerned transactions from 2017–2019 and does not, by itself, resolve the newer allegations concerning 2021–2022.

For compliance officers, forensic accountants and financial crime investigators, the immediate priority is to examine the original audit findings, payment vouchers, tender notices, bid evaluations, contract-award approvals, beneficial ownership of contractors and evidence of delivery. Investigators should also determine whether contracts were artificially divided to avoid approval thresholds, whether payments corresponded to completed work and whether any losses can be quantified independently.

Compliance takeaway

 The reported ₦10.4 billion exposure warrants independent verification and a documented response from the relevant oversight authorities. The decisive questions are whether procurement rules were breached, whether public funds were lost, who held approval and control responsibilities, and what corrective or recovery measures are justified by the evidence.