Behavioural Procurement: The Next Frontier of Public Procurement Reform in Nigeria

Nigeria’s public procurement system has undergone remarkable transformation in the past two decades. The enactment of the Public Procurement Act, 2007, the establishment of the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP), and the emergence of professional certification frameworks have significantly strengthened the legal and institutional architecture governing public procurement in Nigeria.

More recently, the renewed emphasis placed on procurement professionalisation under the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, coupled with the reform initiatives championed by the Director-General of the Bureau of Public Procurement, Dr. Adebowale A. Adedokun, particularly through the Nigerian Procurement Certification Programme (NPCP), has further reinforced government’s commitment to building a competent, ethical and professional procurement workforce.

These reforms reflect a growing recognition that procurement is not merely an administrative function but a strategic instrument for national development.

Today, procurement planning, competitive bidding, bid evaluation, contract award and contract management are governed by credible legal and professional standards designed to promote transparency, competition, accountability and value for money. But despite these commendable reforms, procurement-related controversies continue to dominate public discourse. Reports of inflated contracts, abandoned projects, procurement irregularities, conflict of interest, abuse of emergency procurement provisions and contract manipulation remain disturbingly frequent.

The gravity of the challenge was recently underscored by the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ola Olukoyede, who observed that procurement and contract fraud account for more than ninety per cent of corruption cases in Nigeria’s public sector. His observation reinforces the suspicion of many procurement practitioners on the vulnerability of procurement within public financial management, and raises an important question about the dominance of procurement failures in public sector governance despite the strength of procurement laws, the robustness of institutions and the increasing cognizance of professional certification?
Beyond stronger rules, the next frontier in procurement development should be procurement behaviour, an emerging procurement model that integrates insights from behavioural discipline to strengthen governance in procurement decision-making.

Over the past three decades, behavioural thinking has transformed disciplines that were once dominated by assumptions of perfect rationality. Behavioural economics challenged the belief that individuals always make economically rational choices. Behavioural finance demonstrated that investors are influenced by emotions, overconfidence, fear and cognitive bias.

Behavioural accounting similarly emerged from the recognition that accounting outcomes cannot always be explained by standards and regulations alone because professional judgement is influenced by psychological, social and organisational factors.
Researchers increasingly argue that codes, regulations and oversight mechanisms are essential but insufficient on their own because they often fail to address the behavioural features of decision-makers.

Public procurement deserves the same behavioural perspective.
Procurement is often viewed as a technical process involving a cycle of activities from needs assessment to planning, solicitation, evaluation, award and contract administration. The reality, however, is that it is a decision-making process that reflects the judgement of people that operates within complex environments.

Unlike the traditional approach, this perspective asks not only whether procurement complied with the law, but also why procurement actors behaved the way they did throughout the procurement process.

Behavioural influences often shape procurement outcomes long before tenders are advertised or bids evaluated. Specifications may be altered to favour a preferred supplier. Dominant opinions may be difficult to challenge by evaluation committee members.

Poor performance may be downplayed by contract managers due to institutional pressure or personal relationships. Implied directives or subtle influence may be exerted by senior executives over procurement decisions without explicit directives. The retaliation suffered by whistleblowers may also force procurement officers to be silent in the face of irregularities.

These behaviours demonstrate that human judgement is neither perfect nor free from the influence of social and organisational factors. Behavioural factors such as overconfidence, authority bias, confirmation bias, herd behaviour, and conflicts of interest can distort professional judgement, weaken procurement integrity and compromise objective decision-making even where no explicit corruption exists.

The recognition of this in public procurement, strengthens behavioural integrity while ensuring that decisions are based on evidence.

But perhaps the greatest behavioural risk in procurement is organisational silence. Many procurement professionals recognise irregularities but choose not to speak because institutional culture discourages constructive dissent. Compliance gradually gives way to conformity for fear of career stagnation, victimisation or isolation.

This explains why procurement failures frequently occur even in organisations that possess comprehensive procurement manuals, experienced procurement personnel and elaborate approval procedures.
Regulations often concentrate on ensuring that professionals appear independent to external observers. Genuine independence in procurement process, however, exists only where decision-makers are objective and avoid conflicting interests.

The proposed behavioural framework aims at genuine independence in judgement, not merely procedural compliance.
Behavioural Procurement extends to the oversight institutions, not only on the behaviour of procurement officers. Where credible petitions alleging violations are ignored, delayed, selectively pursued or shielded from objective scrutiny by regulators, investigators and oversight agencies, behavioural signals are sent throughout the procurement system.

Such create a perception that accountability is determined by identities and not the gravity of the reported misconduct. It weakens compliance, reinforces organisational silence, diminishes whistleblower confidence and undermine the objectives of the procurement laws.

Recent developments in Nigeria’s public administration further illustrate this behavioural dimension. Allegations of violations of financial regulations and procurement laws have resulted in decisive administrative action in some public institutions.

The removal of senior public officials in the Humanitarian Affairs Ministry in 2024 by the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the restructuring of the leadership of the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) in 2021 by the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari demonstrates Nigeria’s continued commitment at ensuring institutional accountability and a credible procurement and financial governance.

While these actions are commendable, it is noticeable however that not all allegations of procurement and financial management violations attract the same level of institutional scrutiny. There are documented petitions that received no attention despite credible evidence of violations. Variations in the scale of contract engagements, agency capacity, oversight influences, and to a reasonable extent, the level of publicity generated by specific cases affects investigative response.

From a Behavioural Procurement perspective, consistency, objectivity and timeliness in enforcement are themselves behavioural interventions that strengthen public confidence, reinforce ethical decision-making and promote a culture of integrity across the procurement ecosystem.

This broader behavioural framework invites reflection on Section 53 of the Public Procurement Act, 2007. While the provision empowers the Bureau of Public Procurement to review procurement matters and recommend criminal investigation where appropriate, the exercise of that discretion inevitably carries behavioural implications. Where credible allegations are not referred for independent investigation or where enforcement appears inconsistent, the law may be perceived as providing institutional protection rather than promoting institutional accountability. Behavioural Procurement therefore suggests that procurement legislation should not only prescribe investigative powers but also strengthen behavioural incentives for timely, objective and transparent enforcement.

Consideration may therefore be given to reviewing Section 53 to introduce clearer referral thresholds, reasonable timelines and enhanced transparency obligations that minimise uncertainty where credible evidence of serious procurement violations exists. Such reforms would reinforce public confidence that procurement accountability is driven by evidence, consistency and the rule of law rather than by institutional preference or external influence.

As Nigeria continue to make progress in strengthening its procurement legislation and institutional reforms with professional certification, institutions must begin to appreciate procurement performance measurement that is based on behavioural leadership, ethical organisational culture and professional independence. Organisational trust, whistleblower protection, conflict-of-interest management, psychological safety, transparency, accountability and a procurement culture that shapes decision-making must be in the equation.

Compliance with procurement procedures or the number of procurement audits conducted should no longer be the sole basis for establishing success. Behavioural performance in procurement should be assessed with measurable organisational characteristics that influence procurement integrity just as financial performance is measured through financial indicators. For this, the concept of a Behavioural Procurement Index (BPI) becomes relevant.

The indicators could be any or combination of ethical leadership, professional independence, transparency, accountability, integrity culture, conflict-of-interest management, whistleblower confidence, behavioural competence and public trust.

In non-financial reporting, higher financial performance is generally believed to influence sustainability reporting. Similarly, institutions that demonstrate stronger behavioural cultures are far more likely to deliver sustainable value for money than those relying solely upon procedural compliance. Closely related to this is what I will describe as the Procurement Behaviour Cycle (PBC), a sequence through which human values, perceptions, judgement and decisions interact to shape procurement behaviour and ultimately, procurement outcomes.

Traditional procurement models typically describe procurement as a sequence of technical activities beginning with procurement planning and ending with contract completion. Behavioural Procurement suggests that every procurement outcome begins long before the formal procurement process. It begins with people and their values, perceptions and judgement. The progression is straightforward: values shape perceptions, perceptions influence judgement, judgement informs decisions, decisions shape behaviour, and behaviour ultimately determines procurement outcomes. In other words, procurement outcomes are behavioural outcomes before they become contractual outcomes.

Procurement training should include behavioural decision-making, ethics, organisational psychology and leadership, as well as behavioural auditing that examines the organisational conditions under which procurement decisions are made.

This is consistent with behavioural governance research, which argues that strengthening professionals’ expectation of positive outcomes from compliant decisions, reinforcing ethical judgement and reducing the propensity for moral disengagement can significantly improve professional decision-making.

The Bureau of Public Procurement must advance this aspect of procurement governance by complementing existing legal and institutional frameworks with behavioural innovation. Behavioural Procurement presents an opportunity for accredited institutions and professional bodies to incorporate behavioural approach into procurement education and certification curricula. Anti-corruption agencies should recognise that prevention of procurement abuse requires understanding the behavioural environments in which procurement decisions are made, beyond merely investigating financial consequences after the acts.

Nigeria has travelled an impressive distance in strengthening procurement regulation. While the achievement should be celebrated, it should also remain a journey rather than a destination.

Procurement is a human activity and every procurement decision reflects values before procedures, just as every contract reflects culture before compliance. Every procurement process ultimately becomes a mirror of the behaviour of the people entrusted with administering it, which perhaps is the missing link in Nigeria’s public procurement practice.

The future of public procurement will not be determined solely by better regulations, digital transformation, sustainable procurement or more compliance audits. The quality of human behaviour that underpins procurement decisions will play vital role, the more reason behavioural procurement should be the next frontier of procurement governance, when integrity becomes habit, independent judgement becomes the norm, ethical leadership becomes institutional culture, and public procurement consistently delivers transparency, accountability and value for money in the service of national development.

About the Author
About the Author: Yisa Usman, MSc, FCA, FCTI, FPP (Tier IV), ACIPS Affiliate, is a Governance, Public Financial Management, Procurement and Accountability Professional. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN), a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria (CITN), an Affiliate Member of the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply (CIPS), United Kingdom, and a Fellow Procurement Professional (Tier IV) under the Nigeria Procurement Certification Programme (NPCP) of the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP), supported by the World Bank. He is currently a Doctoral Candidate in Accounting with research interests in corporate governance, ESG, sustainability reporting, behavioural procurement, public procurement and institutional accountability. He writes from Abuja, Nigeria, and can be reached at info@futurebridgeconsult.com, and globalconsult.futurebridge@gmail.com