₦3.79 Billion Correctional Feeding Scandal: Ghost Vendors, Suspicious Payment Splitting and Procurement Red Flags put Nigeria’s Prison Spending Under Scrutiny

An explosive investigation into Nigerian Correctional Service expenditure has raised serious questions about public procurement integrity, financial accountability and anti-corruption controls under Controller-General Sylvester Ndidi Nwakuche.

Examination of official payment records, the Service disbursed ₦873.39 million in feeding-related shortfall and rate-adjustment payments through 40 transactions in November and December 2025. Between February and June 2026, another ₦2.92 billion reportedly flowed through 132 payments outside payroll channels, including ₦2.66 billion for food ration supplies.

The investigation identifies vendors allegedly operating with inactive Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) registration status or without identifiable registration records. Eight flagged vendors reportedly collected ₦466.08 million in 12 payments during the first half of 2026.

One particularly troubling transaction pattern involves Galozawa Enterprises, which allegedly received three separate payments totalling ₦46.74 million on the same day for the same Kebbi ration and gas description. The investigation raises questions about possible procurement splitting and compliance with approval thresholds under Section 58(4)(d) of the Public Procurement Act 2007.

From an AML/CFT and financial crime compliance perspective, the findings expose critical risk indicators: inadequate vendor due diligence, questionable beneficiary legitimacy, potential related-party interests, transaction fragmentation, weak expenditure verification and insufficient monitoring of government contractors.

The concerns deepen with findings from an independent investigative panel, which reportedly identified inflated feeding contracts, alleged contractor fronts linked to influential individuals and serious weaknesses in food-supply arrangements across correctional facilities.

The central questions are unavoidable: Who are the ultimate beneficial owners of these contractors? Were enhanced due diligence and independent verification conducted? Were suspicious payment patterns escalated to the appropriate authorities?

These findings warrant independent scrutiny by the EFCC, ICPC, procurement regulators and other relevant oversight institutions. Payment records alone do not establish criminal guilt, but they demand answers, accountability and transparent investigation.