NAGGW Under Scrutiny Over ₦260.5m Rice Contracts, ₦132.2m Retention Payments
Questions Over Statutory Mandate, Inactive Contractors and Certification of Public Projects Under Saleh Abubakar
The National Agency for the Great Green Wall (NAGGW), under Director-General Saleh Abubakar, is facing scrutiny over ₦260.53 million reportedly spent on rice distribution across Kebbi and Nasarawa states in 2025, alongside ₦132.2 million released as retention payments for projects executed in Yobe State.
A review of payment records published by SecretsReporters raises questions about the justification for the rice contracts, the corporate status of the beneficiaries and the verification of projects before public funds were released.
The findings concern a federal agency established principally to combat desertification, restore degraded land and improve the livelihoods of communities affected by environmental degradation.
While the agency’s mandate encompasses food security, poverty alleviation and livelihood enhancement, the reported expenditure raises a fundamental accountability question: What was the legal, budgetary and programme justification for distributing rice through constituency-based contracts, and how did the intervention advance the agency’s statutory objectives?
The available records do not establish that the payments were fraudulent or that the rice was not delivered. However, the scale of the expenditure and the reported corporate registration status of the contractors warrant further scrutiny.
₦260.5 Million Spent on Rice Distribution
According to payment records reviewed by SecretsReporters, the agency paid three contractors a combined ₦260,533,976.74 for rice distribution in Kebbi and Nasarawa states.
The payments were reportedly made as follows:
| Date | Contractor | Project description | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 December 2025 | Greatwish Contractors Nig Ltd | Rice distribution to Yauri/Shanga/Ngaski Federal Constituency, Kebbi | ₦87,100,218.60 |
| 9 September 2025 | Yamraj Engineering and Construction Company | Rice distribution to Nasarawa LGA, Nasarawa/Toto Federal Constituency | ₦86,935,930.23 |
| 9 September 2025 | Bani Tech Construction Company Ltd | Rice distribution to Toto LGA, Nasarawa State | ₦86,497,827.91 |
| Total | ₦260,533,976.74 |
Each contract was worth approximately ₦86 million to ₦87 million.
The two Nasarawa contracts were reportedly paid on the same day and concerned locations within the same federal constituency.
The agency must clarify the basis for dividing the intervention into separate contracts, the procurement method adopted, the quantities of rice supplied and the criteria used to select beneficiaries.
Questions Over the Agency’s Statutory Mandate
The National Agency for the Great Green Wall (Establishment) Act 2015 provides the legal foundation for the agency’s operations.
Its responsibilities include combating desertification, restoring degraded land, promoting afforestation, supporting sustainable dryland agriculture and improving the resilience and livelihoods of affected communities.
The agency’s mandate also encompasses food security, poverty alleviation and livelihood enhancement, including cooperation with relevant authorities on emergency relief for communities affected by drought and desertification.
Rice distribution is not expressly listed as a standalone statutory function. However, the agency’s broader responsibilities mean that the expenditure cannot be declared unlawful merely because rice was involved.
The critical questions are whether the contracts formed part of an approved programme, whether they were covered by the agency’s appropriation and whether procurement and delivery complied with applicable public-sector requirements.
The agency should publish the relevant programme approvals, budget lines, procurement documents and evidence of delivery to establish the connection between the expenditure and its statutory responsibilities.
Three Rice Contractors Reportedly Inactive on CAC Register
The SecretsReporters review reported that all three companies that received the rice payments were listed as inactive on the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) register.
The companies are:
- Greatwish Contractors Nig Ltd
- Yamraj Engineering and Construction Company
- Bani Tech Construction Company Ltd
An inactive status does not automatically establish that a company is fictitious, fraudulent or incapable of executing a contract. It may reflect outstanding statutory filings or other compliance issues.
Nevertheless, the reported status raises questions about the due diligence undertaken before the contracts were awarded and payments processed.
The agency should clarify whether the companies were active and compliant when they tendered, received the contracts and executed the work.
The exact legal names and registration numbers should also be disclosed to enable independent verification.
₦132.2 Million Released as Retention for Yobe Projects
The payment records also indicate that the agency released ₦132,205,708.20 in August 2025 as retention payments for works reportedly carried out in Yobe State in October 2024.
The payments were distributed among seven companies:
| Contractor | Project description | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| M K Square Global Concept Limited | Yobe project retention | ₦21,692,565.84 |
| A & Zy Integrated Resources Ltd | Yobe project retention | ₦21,660,998.48 |
| Nice Green Nig Ltd | Yobe project retention | ₦21,682,137.90 |
| Solid Zone Investment Limited | Yobe project retention | ₦21,622,026.48 |
| Zymarz Nig Ltd | Yobe project retention | ₦21,526,284.89 |
| Bimaz Engineering Construction Company Ltd | Yobe road project retention | ₦13,093,087.52 |
| Dunoma Ventures Ltd | Water reticulation project | ₦10,928,607.09 |
| Total | ₦132,205,708.20 |
Retention payments are ordinarily withheld until contractual conditions are satisfied, including the satisfactory completion and certification of works.
The release of the funds therefore raises questions about the inspection, certification and verification processes undertaken before payment.
The agency should disclose the original contract values, retention clauses, completion certificates, inspection reports and dates on which the projects were certified.
It should also clarify whether the projects were physically inspected and whether the contractors met all contractual obligations before the retention sums were released.
More Questions Over Corporate Registration
The corporate registration review also identified concerns involving some of the retention beneficiaries.
According to the published findings:
- M K Square Global Concept Limited had no matching entry on the CAC register under the name searched.
- A & Zy Integrated Resources Ltd was listed as inactive.
- Bimaz Engineering Construction Company Ltd was listed as inactive.
The absence of a matching company name does not conclusively establish that an entity is unregistered. Variations in legal names and registration records can affect searches.
Similarly, an inactive status does not automatically invalidate a contract or prove that a company failed to execute its obligations.
However, the findings underscore the importance of confirming the legal identity and eligibility of contractors before awarding contracts and releasing public funds.
The agency should provide the registration numbers and relevant corporate status reports for all seven retention beneficiaries.
Accountability Questions for Saleh Abubakar
Saleh Abubakar assumed office as Director-General of the agency in July 2024, making 2025 his first full calendar year in office.
The reported expenditure raises questions that deserve clear answers from the agency’s management.
The Analyst calls on NAGGW to explain:
- What approved programme and budget line funded the ₦260.53 million rice distribution?
- What was the legal and policy justification for the constituency-based contracts?
- What procurement method was used to select the three rice contractors?
- What quantities of rice were purchased, at what unit prices and from which suppliers?
- What documents establish that the rice was delivered to the intended beneficiaries?
- Were the contractors’ CAC registration statuses verified before contract award and payment?
- What projects in Yobe State accounted for the ₦132.2 million retention payments?
- Who inspected and certified the projects before the retention sums were released?
- What evidence demonstrates that the projects were completed satisfactorily and met contractual specifications?
- What measurable environmental, food-security or livelihood outcomes did the expenditure produce?
These questions are not a verdict on the agency or its Director-General. They are necessary inquiries into the management of public resources.
Anti-Graft Agencies Urged to Examine Records
The findings warrant attention from relevant oversight institutions, including the Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation and the National Assembly’s Public Accounts Committees.
Where evidence of possible wrongdoing emerges, the appropriate anti-corruption agencies should examine the underlying records.
Such scrutiny should focus on procurement compliance, budgetary authorisation, contractor eligibility, proof of delivery, project certification and the proper use of public funds.
Any investigation must be evidence-based and distinguish administrative irregularities from criminal conduct.
The agency should also be given an opportunity to provide documentary explanations and correct any inaccuracies in the reported findings.
The Analyst’s Position
The Great Green Wall initiative was established to confront one of the most serious environmental and development challenges facing Nigeria’s northern communities.
Its success should be measured by restored landscapes, improved livelihoods, greater resilience to drought and measurable progress in combating desertification.
Food distribution may form part of a legitimate relief or livelihood intervention. But public expenditure must be supported by clear legal authority, approved programmes, transparent procurement and verifiable delivery.
The reported ₦260.53 million rice expenditure and ₦132.2 million retention payments therefore deserve a transparent explanation from the agency.
The public deserves to know not merely how much was spent, but why it was spent, who benefited, what was delivered and whether the expenditure advanced the purpose for which the agency was established.
The Analyst will continue to pursue the relevant procurement documents, payment vouchers, contract agreements, completion certificates and official responses in the interest of public accountability.