A SaharaReporters review of the public payments portal, GovSpend, has shown that the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) awarded three contracts worth a combined ₦1.278 billion for the maintenance and rehabilitation of roads at the David Umahi Federal University of Medical Sciences, Uburu, Ebonyi State, to two companies linked to the same beneficial owner, raising fresh concerns over suspected contract splitting.

The Federal Road Maintenance Agency is under the Ministry of Works in Nigeria.

Contract splitting generally refers to the fragmentation of a procurement requirement into multiple smaller contracts that could reasonably have been procured as a single project, particularly where such division has the effect of avoiding statutory approval limits, competitive bidding requirements or other procurement safeguards.

An examination of FERMA’s payment records reveals that on February 24, 2025, the agency approved three separate contracts covering virtually identical works at the same project location.

Rather than procuring the works as a single project, the contracts were divided into Sections I, II and III and awarded to Stoneworks Global Investments Ltd and Agelink Network Limited.

However, corporate records obtained from the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) beneficiary ownership register and independent beneficiary ownership portals and reviewed by SaharaReporters show that the two companies share the same beneficial owner.

While Stoneworks Global Investments Ltd is registered with Akpa Vincent Eze as Director, Agelink Network Limited also lists Akpa Vincent Eze as one of its directors, indicating that both companies are linked to the same individual.

The procurement records show that Stoneworks Global Investments Ltd received two of the three contracts, while Agelink Network Limited secured the remaining one.

Specifically, FERMA awarded ₦426,055,416.21 to Stoneworks Global Investments Ltd for the maintenance, repairs and asphalting of some sections of road at the David Umahi Federal University of Medical Sciences, Uburu, Ebonyi State (Section I), under Contract No. EMR/24-22.

The second contract, EMR/24-23, valued at ₦426,197,534.89, was awarded to Agelink Network Limited for the maintenance, repairs and asphalting of some sections of road at the same university (Section II).

FERMA subsequently awarded another ₦426,025,212.91 contract to Stoneworks Global Investments Ltd for identical works covering Section III under Contract No. EMR/24-24.

Together, the three contracts amounted to ₦1,278,278,164.01, with all payments approved on the same day.

A review of the contract descriptions shows that the scope of work across the three awards is substantially identical. Each contract covers the maintenance, repairs and asphalting of sections of roads within the same university campus, with the only apparent distinction being the designation of the road segments as Sections I, II and III.

The procurement records further show that the contracts were processed sequentially under consecutive contract numbers, EMR/24-22, EMR/24-23 and EMR/24-24, suggesting they originated from the same procurement exercise.

The contract values were also strikingly similar. Each award was valued at approximately ₦426 million, resulting in an almost equal distribution of the overall project cost across the three sections.

Although the contracts were awarded to two separate registered companies, corporate ownership records indicate that the companies are controlled by the same individual, effectively concentrating the entire ₦1.278 billion project within businesses linked to a single beneficial owner.

The arrangement raises questions about whether the procurement process achieved genuine competition, given that the contracts shared the same project location, scope of work, award date, near-identical contract values and consecutive contract numbers.

The award of related contracts under the same project to two companies linked to the same beneficial owner has been described by procurement experts as a classic example of contract splitting.

Transparency advocates have repeatedly warned that the use of multiple companies owned or controlled by the same individual to obtain related government contracts can undermine the objectives of competitive public procurement, even where the companies are legally distinct entities.

A lawyer and expert on corporate and procurement matters, Awosusi Kehinde, frowned on the development.

According to him, such awards raise suspicions of foul play and contract manipulation.

“This kind of development qualifies as contract splitting, an act that the procurement law frowns about,” he said.

He questioned how one person could use two different companies to win similar contracts and not use the same company if there were no foul play.

“It may be argued that a company is independent of its owner but in this case, there are questions about conflict of interest and materiality of the awards to these companies owned by the same person,” the lawyer said.

He urged anti-graft agencies to investigate the contract award process with a view to establishing whether due process was truly followed.