The Impact of Corruption and Sabotage on Public-Private Partnerships

For many years, a hopeful term has echoed within government circles, presented in political agendas as the solution to our deficient infrastructure: Public- Private Partnership (PPP). Whether in the energy sector, transportation hubs, or roadway construction, the narrative is consistently similar. Acknowledging budget constraints, the government transfers significant state assets to private entities. We are assured that this approach enhances efficiency, delivers top-tier services, and fosters development without financial strain on public resources. However, the experience of the populace tells a different story: persistent blackouts after power 'privatization', ports encumbered by poorly constructed access roads, and highways perpetually under renovation. The question we need to address is not the reasons for the PPP framework's failures, but rather why Nigeria appears particularly susceptible to these failures. The answer is embedded not in foreign boardrooms, but in the entrenched mindset of our public servants and political leaders, who often perceive every reform as a threat to their own interests rather than as a collective national initiative.

It is important to note that the PPP concept is not inherently flawed. In regions with effective legal systems, it has played a pivotal role in national rejuvenation. Take Rwanda as an example; from the moment business investors set foot in the country, they are met with systems designed to encourage investment. The Rwanda Development Board (RDB) efficiently facilitates entry, guiding investors through the maze of permits, land acquisition, and regulatory challenges with a speed and commitment that has become a hallmark of the nation. Here, the government regards the investor as a collaborator in national development, with its bureaucratic apparatus incentivized to perform effectively. Although Rwanda's scale and political organization differ significantly from Nigeria, the discipline within its institutions provides pertinent insights that cannot be dismissed merely due to size. On the contrary, the typical experience for an investor arriving at a main Nigerian airport is often discouraging. Instead of a welcoming guide, they are typically met by security or immigration personnel whose attitudes may range from bureaucratic apathy to subtle solicitations for bribes. Instances such as being reprimanded for not possessing a business card, or facing invasive, unprofessional inquiries, set a confrontational tone, signaling hostility rather than collaboration. This inaugural encounter is but a harbinger of the challenges that lie ahead—a succession of rent-seeking officials rather than a supportive governance environment. While officials in Rwanda are evaluated based on the projects they facilitate, those in Nigeria too often gauge success on the basis of “opportunities” manipulated for personal gain.

This fundamental difference in outlook significantly influences outcomes. In Nigeria, government frequently acts as a rogue partner, undermining progress from within. A prime illustration of this is the power sector. The privatization initiative launched in 2013, emblematic of a PPP experiment, involved transferring generation and distribution roles to private firms. However, from the outset, the initiative was compromised. Investigations following privatization, including Senate inquiries, revealed that numerous “preferred bidders” were politically affiliated groups that lacked sufficient capital and failed to fulfill their investment promises. These groups acquired assets without the financial or technical capacity to manage them. Even more problematic was the lack of governmental accountability post-privatization. Agencies tasked with oversight failed in their mandates. The publicly-owned Transmission Company of Nigeria remains a weak, underfunded link in a market that is ostensibly liberalized. Most critically, the political resolve to implement cost-reflective tariffs evaporated when electoral interests were at stake, resulting in a market sustained by over N3 trillion in accumulated shortfalls and liabilities, as highlighted by reports from the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC). Consequently, the sector remains moribund: privatized in name only, yet shackled by governmental policy, leading citizens to pay more for unreliable electricity. While private operators bear the brunt of blame, they function within a system designed to fail.

This recurrent theme of asymmetric sabotage can be seen in other sectors as well. Consider the ports concessions granted in 2006, frequently heralded as successful. Although private operators have indeed introduced cranes, enhanced efficiency, and diminished waiting periods at terminals, what benefit is derived from an efficient terminal if the access roads in Apapa resemble an apocalyptic parking lot? The government granted rights to the lucrative operations but neglected its responsibility to maintain the necessary access infrastructure and to simplify the labyrinth of regulatory agencies, which turns port operations into a haven for corruption. The efficiency realized by the private sector is thwarted by failures within the public sector, establishing a deliberate imbalance where profits are privatized while difficulties are distributed among the public. A similar narrative unfolds in our roadway projects. The concept is simple: a contractor is engaged to build and maintain the Lagos-Ibadan expressway, collect tolls, and then return it after a designated period. However, under our system, the ‘chosen’ contractor is often a political ally who fails to deliver, culminating in protracted legal battles over skeletal infrastructure. When discussions arise regarding toll collections—the lifeblood of such initiatives—our leaders recoil, fearful of inciting public backlash driven by a well-founded skepticism that funds collected will be properly accounted for. The civil servants, ranging from high-ranking officials to local agents, frequently perceive these PPP undertakings with animosity, viewing them not as national revitalization efforts but as threats to their patronage schemes. The establishment of a new toll road implies the transition to digital collection methods, potentially stripping numerous individuals of their access to ill-gotten gains generated from the existing, dilapidated state of affairs. Similarly, a private terminal at the port means the endorsement of accountable procedures, undermining the lucrative ‘touting’ and ‘clearing’ operations that receive protection from within the system.

At the core of this issue lies a significant flaw: the Nigerian state, across numerous sectors, often exists more as a facilitator of corruption than as a vehicle for development. PPPs represent a direct threat to this corrupt machine. They introduce legally binding contracts, performance metrics, and, ideally, foster transparency. However, they are viewed as an external contamination within a system that responds aggressively to exclude them—characterized by political meddling, bureaucratic sabotage, and regulatory capture. This model necessitates robust institutions for oversight, but our institutions remain weak and beholden to vested interests. It requires upholding contract integrity in a climate where impunity and renegotiation favor the well-connected are the norm. Political bravery is paramount, yet we find ourselves with leaders motivated by short-term benefits and electoral considerations. Furthermore, a citizenry subjected to dysfunction has become so disillusioned that meaningful oversight feels like an unattainable luxury, whereas today, Nigerian road conditions are so deplorable that citizens lack confidence in understanding project costs and the agreements that exist between the government and contractors. Our collective system is compromised.

The fundamental misstep we are making is akin to a terminally ill patient fixated upon remedies while neglecting the underlying causes of their illness. We demand new roads, power plants, and ports—the flashy solutions proclaimed with great fanfare. Yet, we deliberately dismiss the ominous underlying issues: rampant corruption in award processes, a feverish lack of transparency obscuring expenses and contracts from the populace, and our institutions are too frail to supervise or sustain anything. The ailment is not a scarcity of models or finances, but rather a deeply rooted neglect for process, accountability, and the public’s entitlement to information. How can a road be repaired if the contract governing it is shielded in confidentiality? How can power supply be enhanced if tariff calculations become political tools?

What, then, is the solution? To begin with, we must dismantle the misconception that PPPs are a quick fix. The path is more arduous and requires discipline. As a nation, we need to demand and create the preconditions necessary for success. This includes instituting a comprehensive PPP Act that enforces a degree of public disclosure comparable to the 1983 Thai public gazette of bidders. We must establish legally mandated transparency platforms where every concession agreement, financial model, and performance update is accessible for public examination—not as a favor, but as a right. Our civil service must undergo a transformation, incentivizing personnel to become facilitators and regulators who act for the public's benefit instead of as obstructionists serving private interests. Most importantly, there must be strict repercussions for sabotage, whether it stems from a private operator failing to invest or a public servant unlawfully intervening in processes.

There exists a blueprint for success demonstrated by others. These examples affirm that improvement is achievable. Nigeria is not fated to fail; it is a matter of choice. We have opted for harassment rather than to extend hospitality at our gateways, secrecy instead of transparency in our agreements, patronage over productivity, and impunity superseding integrity. Until we, as a society, advocate for an alternative choice—one in which treating governance issues (transparency, accountability, merit) becomes an essential prerequisite for any proposed solution—the cycle of dysfunction will persist. The genuine partnership that we aspire for does not merely involve an alliance between public and private sectors, but rather a reformed state collaborating with its empowered citizens. This is the only solid foundation upon which authentic development can be established. We must cease pursuing mirages of quick fixes and dedicate ourselves to the rigorous process of healing.