The BPE after Dikki

An acquaintance recently said to me that the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) is perhaps the most scrutinised public institution in Nigeria. For an agency that virtually holds the key to clinching ownerships of privatised government-owned companies with the high stakes involved in bidding for such companies, it is hardly surprising that it should be the subject of such close and persistent scrutiny not only by the bidders and their agents but also by the general public.

Also, the BPE can be said to hold the key to the nation’s prosperity, since its decisions to hand over such privatised companies to a particular bidder among others can have far-reaching effects on how such companies are subsequently run and by extension on the general wellbeing of the people and the economy. Perhaps this is most true in the power sector or in respect of power companies whose proper management or otherwise can translate into social wellbeing and economic progress on the one hand or social distress and economic stagnation or decline, on the other hand.   

In effect, such scrutiny of the BPE is a positive thing and should be encouraged when it is done in good faith and is motivated by a desire to keep the agency on the path of proper conduct. Unfortunately, this cannot be said to be the case with much of the scrutiny to which the agency and similar ones in our country have been subjected to in recent years.

One only needs to examine closely the grounds for some of such scrutiny – and the criticisms that accompany them – to appreciate how they are motivated by bad blood or driven by self-interest disguised as public good. Yet, I would say that even such bad and rather unjustified criticism is good for the BPE – and such other agencies – since their overall impact is to keep it on its toes and incline it to discharge its mandate more responsibly.

The recent exit from office of Mr. Benjamin Ezra Dikki as the Director General of the BPE marked the end of yet another highly scrutinised era in the life of the agency. But it was also an era that saw it realise historic successes as a privatisation agency, most notably with the epic privatisation of the power sector in transactions that were widely acclaimed by industry experts as credible, and which the United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Transformation, Dr. Robert Ichord, while speaking at the Nigerian Power Sector Investors Conference held in Abuja on February 14, 2014, specially acknowledged as the most comprehensive and most transparent transaction in recent history, judging by his over 30 years’ experience in privatisation.

Incidentally, of all the areas in which the BPE has engaged in privatisation, I have a special interest in the power sector, having worked for fifteen years as a technical officer in the then National Electric Power Authority (NEPA) and in various other capacities in the sector, including as a Technical Assistant (Media) in the Presidential Task Force on Power (PTFP) and to the former Minister of Power, Prof. Bart Nnaji, in which capacities I defended the power sector reform (of which the privatisation of the power sector was rather the culminating act) as the best way to put the sector on the path of optimal efficiency and profitability for all stakeholders, provided the right things are done. I adopted this position, in support of the reform, due partly to my experience of working in the then NEPA, with its ingrained inefficiency and many other ills. Besides, I am aware of how an efficient power sector can open the path to economic prosperity for Nigerians and how critical its successful privatisation could be to realising this.

However, beyond the successful privatisation of the power sector during the Dikki era, the BPE witnessed a ramping up of its activities in the area of post-privatisation monitoring, which saw a newly privatised power station like Egbin record major improvements in its operations, beyond keeping to the terms of its privatisation agreement with the BPE and the Nigerian government under the management of KEPCO Energy Resources Limited, its new owner.

And though it must be acknowledged that there have been challenges in the   aftermath of the privatisation of the power sector, like other similar undertakings of the BPE before and after it, it must also be noted that the challenges are not necessarily as a result of privatisation or the manner it was executed but due to other systemic problems. For instance, privatisation cannot be blamed for the problem of sabotage as reflected in the vandalisation of power and gas infrastructure that caused a sharp decline in power output and availability nationwide in the post-privatisation era, especially towards the end of the Jonathan administration.

Privatisation, however well-meaning or well-executed, can only deliver the best results in a country whose citizens consciously work for the common good unlike those responsible for the vandalisation. It is only the activation of a process of improving the management and profitability of former public enterprises as privately-owned companies; and even the privately-owned companies can be susceptible to systemic of other problems like sabotage, as we have witnessed with the power sector in recent years.

That said, the BPE after Dikki may need to consider further strengthening its role in the area of post-privatisation monitoring, which is critical in safeguarding the integrity of its primary achievements in the privatisation of public enterprises such as the defunct successor companies of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN). This is important because the very nature of privatisation entails that public enterprises, its raw material, will continue to dwindle and eventually become depleted as they are converted to private ownership, considering its driving philosophy that they are better managed under private ownership, which precludes setting up of new ones to replace those already privatised.

But the role of post privatisation monitoring is not only dynamic but can exist continuously in a manner beneficial to the system in which the privatised companies operate. And it is a role in which the BPE can serve as a rather specialised or omnibus government regulator of the activities of privatised companies, enforcing a well-defined but dynamic regime of checks against possible excesses or violations while strengthening the core of efficient service delivery.

Perhaps this – the strengthening of its role in post-privatisation monitoring – is something the BPE should give greater thought going forward, as it seeks to improve its usefulness to our country as a privatisation agency.

Ikeogu Oke