One of the most contentious features of Nigeria’s telecommunications sector during the reign of NITEL was the debate over mono-sourcing—the practice of awarding contracts for telecommunications equipment to a single, dominant supplier. This approach, which became especially pronounced during the digitalization of the network, sidelined at least three other companies that competed for NITEL contracts.
In the post-privatization era, some contracts were awarded without due process. Where tenders were requested, only submissions from one systems supplier were considered. In certain cases, no tenders were requested at all—NITEL simply asked a single contractor to provide a quotation. Critics argued that such practices inflated contract costs and entrenched inefficiency.
Within NITEL, mono-sourcing was understood as the consistent award of jobs to one favoured supplier. Opponents blamed the process for excessive costs, while some insiders defended it as unavoidable in cases where urgent execution was required.
Records show that projects such as the Abuja Telecommunications Expansion Project and the Ikeja/Apapa Digital Exchanges and Extended Line Plant (ELP) were mono-sourced. These decisions, however, did not originate from NITEL but were directives of the federal government through the Ministry of Communications.
During the tenure of Communications Minister David Mark, the Ministry often obtained anticipatory approvals from the presidency, directing contractors to mobilize and begin work even before pricing was agreed. A notable example was the Ikeja/Apapa exchange, where destruction of the facilities compelled immediate restoration due to their strategic industrial and commercial importance. In this case, pricing benchmarks were drawn from previous projects such as the Bauchi North-East Expansion.
Similarly, the Abuja Expansion Project was mono-sourced to Siemens on the direct instruction of General Ibrahim Babangida’s government, with pricing again benchmarked against earlier contracts.
That said, not all NITEL projects were mono-sourced. Some—such as the Kaduna International Telecommunication Switching Centre (ITSC), the Jos North-East Project, the Bauchi contract, and the On-line Building Projects—were awarded after open competitive bidding.
International Benchmarking and Contract Pricing Concerns
A recurring question was whether NITEL’s contract prices matched international standards. Many critics argued Nigerian contracts were bloated compared to global benchmarks. NITEL’s defense was that local conditions—such as electricity costs, transportation, customs duties, and volatile exchange rates—made comparisons with developed countries unfair.
There were also cases where lower bids led to problems. Contractors who quoted cheaply often returned midway into projects seeking revaluation due to “new requirements,” delaying delivery. As a result, NITEL claimed that the lowest quotation was not always the most competitive in real terms.
Industry watchers pointed out that despite criticisms, NITEL’s procurement standards adhered to CCIT requirements and were based on open architecture systems, not proprietary ones.
Continuation of the NITEL Story,
