Connect with us

News

Blame Weak Legislation for PPP Failures- Experts

Published

on

NSE logo.jpg
Kindly share this post

Experts at the just-concluded African Engineering Conference, organised by the Nigerian Society of Engineers (NSE) in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, have blamed the failure of public-private partnership on weak laws.

It also featured the society’s Annual General Meeting and the UNESCO African Engineering Week.

The events were held at the Tropicana Conference Centre with the Federation of African Engineering Organisation (FAEO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisations (UNESCO).

Over 600 delegates from across the world attended. Its theme was “Adequate, reliable and sustainable energy in Africa.”

In his presentation entitled: “Nigeria’s infrastructure deficit:  Beyond the limitation of finance in public-private partnership and project procurement options,” Senator Iyiola Omisore said the global perspective of PPP is that it remains the best approach to infrastructural growth.

He noted that although the PPP model had been deployed to execute a few public projects, its value has been mostly felt in Lagos State, where the authorities have partnered the private sector on design, finance and management of public utilities.

Outside the state, he said, infrastructure procurement by states is still tied to the old model of contract awards to private firms to execute a project designed and financed by the government. For this reason, the country has fared poorly.

“The critical point to be made here is that, though there seems to be shortage of investable funds in the international market, but Nigeria’s crisis seems compounded by the integrity profile of our legal framework for an ideal PPP model,” he said.

Omisore said without going into the details of the shortfalls in the legal framework, “suffice to say, however,  that  the  Infrastructure Concession Regulatory  Commission    (ICRC) Act  of  2005, the Public Procurement Act 2007 regulations issued by ICRC governing  the  PPP process and  various state laws as described in each state’s PPP policies,  fall  short  of necessary regulatory framework for proper implementation of  PPP projects, most  importantly  with respect  to  dispute resolution during the tenor of the contract and drew attention to the absence of political will to see through the policies of previous administration.

He said because   concessionaires are aware of a negative   tendency by a new administration not to honour to the letter, the tenets of an arrangement by a departed administration, they are often inclined to speed up the inauguration of projects, irrespective of its stage of completion, before the expiration of tenure of the awarding administration.  And except there is a determination that a PPP succeed, there are vested interests   in a country to ensure that the government’s initiative to promote PPP as a policy fail.

“PPP projects often encounter serious resistance from labour unions, civil service employees and sundry   socio-economic interest groups,” Omisore said, adding that the general public sometimes misunderstand PPP out of ignorance and  on the strategic  importance of PPP in a  nation’s socio-economic development.

He said PPP are  meant to  be  contractual arrangements   between  the public  and  private sectors of  the economy, in which  responsibilities, risks and  obligations are  to  be  shared  by  both  sides   in  order  to  guarantee  the  greatest benefits to the public.

He regreted that in Nigeria, a segment of  the  public  service  operators tend  to see the private  sector concessionaires  as the  enemies that  would deprive them  of  their  jobs, therefore,  to  be overcome at  all cost. This, he said, is  often  achieved  when  some rules in the civil service are exhumed to advise  the government on why all of a PPP undertaking, or some aspects of  PPP  project  agreement  should  not  be honoured, thereby leading to the government unilaterally rebidding on contracts voluntarily entered.

“Moreso, with a weak legal framework, under which concessionaires cannot be protected, the tendency is for the  private  sector operators, both from within and from outside of the country, to be wary  of doing business with government. Thus, timely procurement of public utilities suffers and the socio-economic development and the country is the worst for it,” he regretted.

Otis Anyaeji, outgoing president, thanked Omisore for touching on a crucial aspect affecting the industry by harping on the opportunities that PPP model brings.

Anyaeji called on engineers to see beyond the threshold of career limitations and be creative in their service.

Another speaker, Mr. Uzo Ezimora, director of Operations of General Electric, one of the operators of the Nigerian Railway project under the PPP model, emphasised that no government anywhere in the world can fund infrastructural development.

Corroborating Omisore, he beckoned on engineering firms to form formidable partnerships or mergers to pull resources to meet the requisite qualifications for government’s advertised jobs on engineering and projects.


Kindly share this post

Nigeria CommunicationsWeek believes that technology makes life more exciting and helps improve the lives of people around Nigeria and indeed the world. So since 2007, we have devoted our energy to independent reportage of technology and how they affect lives.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Comments

News

FIRS Declares NIN, CAC Numbers as Tax IDs from 2026

Published

on

Kindly share this post

Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) has announced that the National Identification Number (NIN) issued by the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) will automatically serve as the Tax Identification Number (Tax ID) for all Nigerian citizens, while registered businesses will use their Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) registration numbers.

FIRS Declares NIN, CAC Numbers as Tax IDs from 2026

FIRS

The disclosure was made during a public awareness campaign on the new tax laws posted on X (formerly Twitter) on Monday.

According to the Service, the Nigeria Tax Administration Act (NTAA), which comes into force in January 2026, mandates the use of Tax IDs for certain financial and commercial transactions, including bank account ownership.

FIRS explained that the measure is part of efforts to unify all previously issued Tax Identification Numbers (TINs) by both the federal and state revenue services into a single identifier.

“For individuals, your NIN automatically serves as your Tax ID, while for registered companies, your CAC RC number is used. You do not need a physical card; the Tax ID is a unique number linked directly to your identity,” the Service stated.

The agency noted that the requirement has been in place since the Finance Act of 2019 but has now been strengthened under the NTAA to ensure compliance and ease of administration.

Officials emphasized that the reform would simplify tax processes, reduce duplication, and improve transparency in Nigeria’s tax system.

The Service added that the integration of NIN and CAC numbers into the tax framework would also enhance data accuracy, curb tax evasion, and streamline the monitoring of taxable activities across the country.

Tax experts have described the development as a significant step toward modernizing Nigeria’s revenue administration, noting that it aligns with global best practices where national identity systems are linked to tax compliance.

The FIRS urged Nigerians to ensure that their NINs and CAC registration details are up-to-date, stressing that the identifiers would be required for transactions such as property purchases, contract awards, and access to certain financial services once the NTAA takes effect


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

News

US Begins Partial Visa Ban on Nigerians January 1

Published

on

Kindly share this post

The United States will begin a partial suspension of visa issuance to Nigerians from January 1, 2026, following a new presidential proclamation aimed at strengthening border and national security.

US Begins Partial Visa Ban on Nigerians January 1

The US Mission in Nigeria announced on Monday that the restriction will take effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Standard Time in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 10998, titled ‘Restricting and Limiting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the Security of the United States.’

According to the mission, Nigeria is one of 19 countries affected by the measure.

Others listed are Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

The proclamation provides for a partial suspension of visa issuance covering nonimmigrant B-1/B-2 visitor visas, as well as F, M and J student and exchange visitor visas.

It also applies to immigrant visas, though with limited exceptions.

The statement read in part, “Effective January 1, 2026, at 12:01 a.m. EST, in line with Presidential Proclamation 10998 on “Restricting and Limiting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the Security of the United States,” the Department of State  is partially suspending visa issuance to nationals of 19 countries – Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burundi, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe – for nonimmigrant B-1/B-2 visitor visas and F, M, J student and exchange visitor visas, and all immigrant visas with limited exceptions.”

US officials clarified that the policy does not apply to all travellers. Exemptions include immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran, dual nationals applying with passports from countries not affected by the suspension, and Special Immigrant Visas for eligible US government employees.

Other exempted categories include lawful permanent residents of the United States and participants in certain major international sporting events.

The US government emphasised that the proclamation applies only to foreign nationals who are outside the United States on the effective date and who do not hold a valid US visa as of January 1, 2026.

“Foreign nationals, even those outside the United States, who hold valid visas as of the effective date are not subject to Presidential Proclamation 10998. No visas issued before January 1, 2026, at 12:01 a.m. EST, have been or will be revoked pursuant to the Proclamation,” the statement added.

Visa applicants from affected countries may continue to submit applications and attend interviews. However, the US Mission noted that such applicants “may be ineligible for visa issuance or admission to the US” under the new rules.

The announcement comes amid a series of recent US policy decisions that have raised concerns among Nigerians seeking to travel, study or migrate to the country.

In October, the United States added Nigeria back to its list of countries accused of violating religious freedom, citing persistent insecurity and attacks on Christian communities. This was followed by Nigeria’s inclusion on a revised US travel ban list that imposed partial entry restrictions on Nigerians.

The US has also tightened immigration and visa policies affecting Nigerians. Earlier this year, the validity of most non-immigrant visas issued to Nigerians was reduced to single-entry visas with a three-month duration.

 


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

News

DPLAN Threatens NDPC with Legal Action for Setting aside $32.8m Meta Fine

Published

on

Kindly share this post

Data Privacy Lawyers Association of Nigeria (DPLAN), a professional body dedicated to fostering the growth and advancement of privacy and data protection, has issued a formal pre-action notice to the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC), threatening to initiate legal proceedings over what it described as an unlawful consent judgment that set aside a $32.8 million remedial fine imposed on Meta Platforms, Inc.
DPLAN Threatens NDPC with Legal Action for Setting aside $32.8m Meta Fine
In a letter dated December 15, 2025, and addressed to the National Commissioner of the NDPC, the association, made up of data protection and privacy law practitioners, gave the Commission a 30-day ultimatum to provide explanations or face litigation at the Federal High Court.

The pre-action notice was signed by Emmanuel Okpara, Esq., Litigation and Compliance Director, and Mus’ab Awwal Mu’az, Esq., secretary of the Association’s Steering Committee.

The dispute stemmed from a consent judgment delivered on November 3, 2025, by Justice J.K. Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CC/355/2025 between Meta Platforms, Inc. and the NDPC.

Following investigations conducted under the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA), 2023, the NDPC had issued a Final Order against Meta Platforms, Inc., finding “widespread violations of the data protection and privacy rights of approximately 61 million Nigerians,” and imposing a remedial fine of USD 32,800,000.

The pre-action notice was signed by Emmanuel Okpara, Esq., Litigation and Compliance Director, and Mus’ab Awwal Mu’az, Esq., Secretary of the Association’s Steering Committee.

The dispute stemmed from a consent judgment delivered on November 3, 2025, by Justice J.K. Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CC/355/2025 between Meta Platforms, Inc. and the NDPC.

Following investigations conducted under the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA), 2023, the NDPC had issued a Final Order against Meta Platforms, Inc., finding “widespread violations of the data protection and privacy rights of approximately 61 million Nigerians,” and imposing a remedial fine of USD 32,800,000.

The NDPC investigation stemmed from a petition filed at the commission on August 14, 2023, against Meta Platforms Inc. by the convener of Personal Data Protection Awareness Initiative, Ozoemena Nwogbo, regarding violation of the Nigeria Data Protection Act.

After its investigation, NDPC found Meta Platforms Inc. wanting and, on February 18, 2025, issued nine Final Orders against Meta Platforms Inc.

NDPC’s Order

The NDPC’s order nine reads, “Meta shall pay the naira equivalent of 32,800,000 USD (Thirty-two million, eight-hundred thousand United States Dollars) as a remedial fee. The naira equivalent shall be at the rate determined by the Central Bank of Nigeria.

“The details of the account for payment of the remedial fee are as follows: Account Name: Nigeria Data Protection Commission Fund Account. Account Number: 0020331265048 (300131267). Use RTGS for payment.”

The NDPC added, “Note that Meta has a right to seek a judicial review of this decision. The Commission will closely monitor Meta’s remediation process and its impact on data subjects for upwards of six months.”

However, the Final Order was subsequently set aside through Terms of Settlement, which were adopted by the court as a consent judgment on November 3, 2025, following a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/355/2025, filed by Meta Platforms Inc. against the NDPC.

Part of the Terms of Settlement entered between NDPC and Meta Platforms Inc. reads, “The applicant (Meta Platforms Inc.) and the respondent (NDPC) have come to a mutual settlement agreement that resolves the dispute underlying the applicant’s originating Summons.

“Pursuant to this agreement: (I) the applicant has agreed to provide specific remedial consideration to the respondent in support of protecting the rights of data subjects in Nigeria; and (II) the respondent has inter alia agreed to set aside and waive any rights to enforce or take steps to enforce the Final Orders against the applicant.”

The settlement terms specifically read, “In the light of the foregoing: The applicant wholly and completely terminates, abandons, withdraws, and discontinues the Originating Summons as well as any and all claims against the respondent connected to or arising from the matters or the subject matter thereof, except as the parties have otherwise agreed.

“The respondent: (I) sets aside the Final Orders against Meta; and (II) save and except as the parties have otherwise agreed, fully and firmly releases and discharges Meta from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, contracts, obligations, suits, debts, costs, liabilities, which the respondent ever had, may now have, or May hereafter claim to have against Meta in respect of the matters.”

Association Alleges Illegality In Settlement

But the Data Privacy Lawyers Association contended that the consent judgment was entered into unlawfully, arguing that it was done without lawful statutory authority, in violation of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023, and in derogation of the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed under Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

The Association further said the action was taken “to the grave prejudice of millions of affected Nigerians and the public interest, as well as the Federal Government of Nigeria.”

In the notice, the Association warned that unless the issues raised are urgently addressed within the statutory notice period, it would approach the Federal High Court to seek multiple reliefs.

These include an order setting aside, vacating, and nullifying the consent judgment on grounds of fraud, collusion, material non-disclosure, lack of statutory authority, and violation of the NDPA, 2023.

It is also seeking a declaration that the consent judgment is “null, void, unconstitutional, and of no legal effect,” as well as a declaration that the NDPC lacks statutory authority to waive, compro

Other reliefs sought include an order restoring and reviving the Final Order against Meta Platforms, including the $32.8 million fine, and an order restraining any further reliance on or enforcement of the consent judgment.

The Association also asked the court for other orders the Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, public accountability, and the protection of constitutional rights.

In the interest of transparency and accountability, the Association urged the NDPC to provide a written explanation of the legal basis for entering into the Terms of Settlement, clarify the statutory authority relied upon to waive the remedial fine and set aside the Final Order, and take steps to remedy the issues raised.

The letter, the Association said, constitutes the requisite pre-action notice under applicable law.

It warned that unless the concerns are satisfactorily addressed within 30 days of receipt of the notice, it will proceed to institute legal proceedings without further recourse.

mise, or extinguish liabilities, sanctions, or remedial fines arising from established violations of the Act.


Kindly share this post
Continue Reading

Trending