HEDA urges EFCC to probe NSPRI’s N683.8m spending

HEDA wants the EFCC to examine alleged spending of N683.8m by the Nigerian Stored Products Research Institute, or NSPRI. The payments were reportedly made in one day on projects that appear different from the institute’s statutory research duties. The issue matters because it raises questions about public money, procurement and institutional accountability.

A Foundation for Investigative Journalism report said NSPRI made 14 payments to 14 companies on May 10. The listed projects included solar mini-grids, agricultural training, a farmers’ market, streetlights, boreholes, tricycles and health-centre renovations. Some were located in constituencies across five states.

HEDA asked the EFCC to establish why the payments were made, whether procurement rules were followed and whether public funds were properly used. It also urged legal action if wrongdoing was proven. HEDA wants the investigation’s outcome made public, subject to legal requirements.

The Nigerian Stored Products Research Institute is a government research institution concerned with what happens to agricultural commodities after they are harvested. Its work focuses on post-harvest handling, which includes keeping produce safely, reducing damage and supporting its movement through later stages. This role matters because food can lose value after harvest if handling systems are weak.

The article identifies three central responsibilities. NSPRI conducts research into post-harvest handling, develops relevant equipment and shares its findings with farmers, industrialists, produce handlers and inspectors. These duties connect the institute to agriculture, food preservation and practical support for people who handle farm products.

The reported spending prompted concern because many listed projects were community infrastructure or empowerment activities. HEDA questioned their apparent distance from NSPRI’s statutory purpose. It called for records to be examined so resources given to a research institute serve their intended purposes transparently.

The reported scale is striking: N683.8m allegedly left NSPRI through 14 separate payments on a single day. Fourteen different companies reportedly received those payments. The figures matter because they show a concentrated use of public funds and provide investigators with a defined set of transactions to review.

The Foundation for Investigative Journalism identified the payment date as May 10. Its report linked the money to varied projects rather than one research programme. Examples included N104.5m for solar mini-grids, N99.1m for agricultural capacity-building training and N78.2m for another solar mini-grid project.

HEDA said investigators should examine the circumstances surrounding each payment and the procurement procedures used. They should also determine whether the spending complied with applicable laws and regulations. The article does not state that wrongdoing was proven; it describes allegations requiring independent investigation.

The payments reportedly funded a wide mix of community and development projects. The list included health-centre renovations, polytechnic workshops, streetlights, boreholes, tricycles, empowerment programmes, agricultural training, farmers’ markets and solar mini-grids. This variety is central to the concern because the projects do not form one obvious research programme.

The report placed some projects in federal constituencies across Borno, Benue, Yobe, Kwara and Niger states. For example, N104.5m reportedly went to solar mini-grids in Maiduguri Metropolitan Constituency, Borno State. Another N99.1m was linked to agricultural capacity-building training there. A N53.8m mobilisation payment concerned a farmers’ market project in Benue State.

Other highlighted payments included N52.2m for a solar mini-grid in Yobe State and N78.2m for solar mini-grids. HEDA wants the locations, contracts and payment purposes checked against NSPRI’s mandate and procurement rules before conclusions are reached.

NSPRI’s statutory responsibilities centre on agricultural commodities after harvest. It researches handling methods, develops relevant equipment and shares findings with farmers, industrialists, produce handlers and inspectors. Streetlights, boreholes, health-centre renovations and solar mini-grids are normally community infrastructure projects, so their connection to this mandate is not immediately clear.

The reported spending covered projects spread across federal constituencies and several states. It included N104.5m for solar mini-grids in Maiduguri Metropolitan Constituency and N52.2m for a solar mini-grid in Yobe State. The key mechanism behind HEDA’s concern is the apparent gap between the institute’s legal purpose and the projects receiving its funds.

That gap does not by itself prove unlawful conduct. HEDA called for an independent review of the payments, procurement process and legal authority for the spending. Investigators would need to establish whether each project had a valid connection to NSPRI’s work and whether the expenditure followed applicable rules.

The investigation would need to move beyond the payment totals and examine the full decision trail. That means identifying who approved each transaction, what work was contracted, which companies were selected and whether the spending had a lawful connection to NSPRI’s mandate. It would also need to test whether the payments complied with applicable procurement laws and regulations.

The article gives concrete transactions for that review. Shafana Enterprises reportedly received N53.8m as a 30 per cent mobilisation fee for a farmers’ market in Benue State. Other payments went to companies for solar mini-grids and agricultural training. Investigators would check contracts, approvals, delivery and the basis for those amounts.

HEDA specifically asked the EFCC to determine whether the transactions involved financial impropriety or abuse of public office. If wrongdoing were established, it urged appropriate legal action. It also called on oversight authorities to examine procurement and expenditure records and publish investigation findings where legally permitted.

Post-harvest losses are reductions in the quantity, quality or value of farm produce after harvesting. They can result from poor storage, rough handling, pests, spoilage or inadequate transport. Research into these problems matters because producing food is not enough; farmers and supply chains must also preserve it until it reaches consumers.

NSPRI’s stated role includes researching post-harvest handling, developing useful equipment and sharing findings with farmers, industrialists, produce handlers and inspectors. Better methods can help farmers retain more saleable produce. Consumers may benefit from more reliable supplies and better quality, while businesses avoid losing materials that could have been sold or processed.

The article does not quantify post-harvest losses or describe specific NSPRI inventions. It does establish why the institute’s mandate is important and why its spending attracted scrutiny. Money assigned to such research should be traceable to that purpose, with transparent records showing how public resources support agricultural handling and preservation.