By Issah Olegor
Fresh questions are emerging about the public procurement oversight system after the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) indicated it does not hold key documentation relating to approvals for sole-sourced and restricted tender contracts under the government’s controversial “Big Push” infrastructure programme.
The development follows a formal Right to Information (RTI) request filed by legal representatives of Emmanuel Senyo Amekplenu, who sought detailed records on how procurement approvals were granted for over 100 road contracts awarded by the Ministry of Roads and Highways.
RTI Request Seeks Basis For Approvals
The request, submitted through solicitor Eric Dawda, was grounded in Article 21(1)(f) of the 1992 Constitution and the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989).
It specifically demanded disclosure of all technical assessments, due diligence reports, contractor evaluations, and internal documentation that informed approvals for sole sourcing and restricted tendering under the Big Push programme.
The request also sought evidence that statutory requirements—such as urgency, exclusivity, and national interest—were satisfied in line with Sections 39 and 40 of the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663).
Legal notice within the request warned that failure to comply could result in court action to compel disclosure.
PPA’s Response: “We Do Not Approve Contracts”
In its official response, the PPA stated that it was unable to provide the requested information, arguing that it does not approve contracts and therefore does not possess the documentation sought.
Instead, the Authority directed the applicant to the Ministry of Roads and Highways, describing it as the institution “best placed” to provide the relevant details concerning the Big Push contracts.
The response, signed by Acting Director of Legal Naa Ayorkor G. Cato-Browne, has since triggered widespread debate about the exact role of the PPA in the procurement framework.
Legal And Institutional Questions
Under the procurement laws, sole sourcing and restricted tendering are not routine methods and require justification based on specific criteria.
These methods are typically subject to oversight processes intended to ensure compliance with legal thresholds.
The PPA’s position that it does not “approve contracts” has therefore raised critical questions: If not the PPA, which body validates the justification for sole sourcing? Where are the technical assessments and due diligence records required by law? Which institution ensures compliance with procurement standards before contracts are awarded?
For governance experts, the response has exposed what they describe as a potential gap—or ambiguity—in accountability within the procurement system.
Background: Big Push Contracts Under Scrutiny
The RTI request comes in the wake of an investigation by The Fourth Estate, which revealed that out of 107 road contracts awarded under the Big Push initiative, 81 were procured through sole sourcing, with the remainder through restricted tendering.
None of the contracts, according to the report, went through open competitive tendering—despite longstanding concerns about transparency and value for money in public procurement.
These findings have triggered intense public debate, with civil society organisations and policy analysts calling for full disclosure of the processes that led to the contract awards.
Shifting Responsibility
The PPA’s directive that the Ministry of Roads and Highways should provide the requested information effectively shifts responsibility back to the same entity that awarded the contracts—raising concerns about independent oversight.
Critics argue that this creates a circular accountability problem, where the institution responsible for awarding contracts is also the primary source of information on their justification.
This, they say, undermines the spirit of transparency embedded in procurement laws and the RTI framework.
Rising Tensions And Possible Legal Action
The response has also heightened tensions around the issue, with indications that legal action may be pursued to compel disclosure if the requested information is not provided.
The RTI request explicitly warned that failure to comply could lead to proceedings at the High Court to enforce constitutional rights to access information.
