A new directive issued by the Ministry of Local Government, Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs has triggered intense scrutiny from procurement experts,
A new directive issued by the Ministry of Local Government, Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs has triggered intense scrutiny from procurement experts, and critics, who say the move violates multiple provisions of Ghana’s Public Procurement Act (Act 663, as amended).
The directive, which recommends eight pre-selected companies for the nationwide supply of standardized metal-framed school desks to Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs), is being criticized as a legally flawed and operationally dangerous attempt to centralize procurement authority.
The controversy comes at a time when the government is under pressure to improve transparency in public spending, reduce corruption risks, and adhere strictly to procurement regulations, especially following a series of high-profile audit queries and procurement-related scandals over the last decade.
Historically, attempts by central government, ministries to determine suppliers for decentralized procurement entities have resulted in financial losses and legal battles, prompting Parliament and the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) to insist on stronger compliance with Act 663.
The Directive That Sparked the Storm
In a letter referenced SCR/EA265/60/01 W and dated 28 October 2025, the Ministry communicated to all Regional Ministers and subsequently to all MMDAs that it had reviewed the Ministry of Education’s new standards for metal-framed school desks.
The letter went further to list eight companies whose samples had allegedly been examined and approved by the Ministry, recommending them for “consideration and further engagement” by local assemblies.
The firms listed are:
Apollo Steel Limited; Azmon Furniture Limited; Consteam Limited; Elana Ventures Limited; Mighty Ghana Limited; BEOBIYA Ghana Limited; Kayas IB Limited and Prompt Supplies Solution Ghana Limited
Although the Ministry added that all firms “are to bid competitively,” the accompanying instruction to prioritize only these eight companies has raised red flags, as it effectively filters out all other qualified suppliers in the furniture manufacturing sector.
Core Legal Violations Identified
1. Breach of Competitive Tendering Requirements — Sections 35 & 44
Procurement experts say the directive violates the principle that competitive tendering must be the default method for public procurement.
By effectively pre-selecting eight companies, the Ministry restricts competition to a small circle of vendors, denying other qualified firms equal opportunity to participate.
Act 663 mandates open competition under National Competitive Tendering (NCT), where tenders must be publicly advertised to all eligible suppliers—something the directive does not allow MMDAs to do independently.
2. Improper Justification for Restricted Tendering — Section 38
While the Ministry may attempt to argue that it is guiding a restricted tendering process, the law is clear: restricted tendering is allowed only under specific, exceptional conditions, such as when goods are highly specialized or when there are too few suppliers.
Metal-framed school desks are neither complex nor limited to a handful of producers.
Ghana has hundreds of carpentry and steel fabrication firms capable of meeting the specifications. Moreover, restricted tendering requires PPA Board approval—yet the Ministry’s letter does not reference any such approval.
3. Usurpation of PPA and MMDA Procurement Mandates
Act 663 assigns the role of maintaining a national supplier database to the Public Procurement Authority—not individual ministries. Likewise, every MMDA is classified as an independent procurement entity responsible for its own procurement decisions.
By prescribing an exclusive vendor list, the Local Government Ministry is seen as overstepping its mandate and encroaching on the procurement authority of local assemblies, a practice that has in the past attracted stern warnings from the Auditor-General.
4. Violation of Prequalification Procedures — Sections 23 & 24
The Ministry’s claim that it examined samples from the eight companies does not constitute a legal prequalification process. Proper prequalification requires public advertisement, distribution of prequalification documents, and application of transparent, published criteria—all done by the procurement entity (the MMDA) for a specific contract.
No such process occurred. Instead, the Ministry conducted what analysts describe as a private, opaque selection exercise.
5. Heightened Risk of Cartel Formation and Price Inflation
By narrowing the supply pool to eight companies nationwide, the Ministry has inadvertently created a market environment prone to collusive tendering—where the selected firms may coordinate pricing or rotate bids. This risk is explicitly addressed in Section 92(2)(a), which prohibits bid-rigging and collusion.
With limited competition, analysts warn that the price of school desks is likely to inflate, undermining the Act’s core objective of ensuring value for money in public procurement.
6. Contradictory Messaging Within the Directive
Although the Ministry’s directive insists that all suppliers must “bid competitively,” procurement observers say that statement is nullified by the prior instruction that only the eight listed companies should be engaged.
This contradiction has been described as an attempt to appear compliant while directing a closed procurement process in practice.
Why These Eight Companies?
A major unanswered question now dominating public discourse is why the Ministry selected these eight firms—and whether political influence or preferential treatment may have played a role. The directive does not disclose:
- The criteria used for selecting the eight firms
- How many companies submitted samples
- Whether any company was disqualified, and why
- Evidence of PPA involvement or overnight.
Critics argue that without full disclosure, the directive risks being perceived as a deliberate attempt to channel a multi-million-cedi national contract to a small group of favored suppliers.
COMMENTS