ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

By Max Amuchie | The Sunday Stew

Language does more than describe reality. It shapes how we perceive it.

Every enduring discipline eventually develops its own vocabulary. Law has its language. Medicine has its language. Economics, engineering, diplomacy and computer science all possess conceptual vocabularies that enable practitioners to describe phenomena with greater precision than ordinary language permits.

Journalism is no exception.

Yet the vocabulary of journalism has largely remained rooted in the 20th century. We continue to speak of newsrooms, reporters, editors, publishers, news cycles and audiences—concepts that remain important but no longer fully capture the realities of a profession transformed by digital technology, artificial intelligence, data science and knowledge production.

If journalism itself is changing, then its language must also evolve.

Throughout this series, I have argued that the 21st century newsroom should no longer be understood merely as a producer of news but as a knowledge-producing institution. That institutional transformation inevitably requires a corresponding conceptual transformation. New realities require new language.

A Note on the Definition of the Sundiata Post Model

In Part 1 of this series, I defined the Sundiata Post Model as an institutional framework for media-based knowledge production. The development of the Model across the subsequent parts has, however, clarified its institutional character and conceptual architecture. I therefore refine that original definition here and assert the following as the canonical definition:

The Sundiata Post Model is an institutional model for media-based knowledge production in which an independent newsroom systematically integrates journalism, original research, conceptual innovation, and scholarly dissemination to produce original analytical constructs that contribute to public understanding, academic inquiry, and policy discourse within the global knowledge ecosystem. Its conceptual framework sets out the principles, structures, processes and mechanisms through which such a newsroom can become a knowledge-producing institution and sustain that capacity over time.

The Sundiata Post Model (SPM) therefore proposes not simply an institutional model but also a vocabulary through which its conceptual framework can be understood and communicated.

This vocabulary should not be viewed as rigid terminology imposed upon the profession. Language evolves through use rather than decree. Some concepts will prove useful. Others may be revised or replaced. Ultimately, the value of any terminology lies not in its novelty but in its capacity to illuminate reality more clearly.

What follows is therefore an emerging lexicon for 21st century journalism. It gives language to the ideas developed throughout this series.

Knowledge-Producing Institution

Perhaps the central concept within the SPM is the Knowledge-Producing Institution.

Traditional media organisations produce journalism. A knowledge-producing institution produces journalism while simultaneously generating research, analytical frameworks, datasets, policy knowledge and institutional memory. It informs today’s public while contributing to tomorrow’s understanding.

This distinction represents the philosophical foundation upon which the entire model rests.

Dual Engine Architecture

The Dual Engine Architecture describes the internal structure through which journalism and knowledge production become mutually reinforcing.

The Media Operations Engine generates journalism, public engagement and commercial activity.

The Knowledge Operations Engine converts that journalistic activity into research, intellectual frameworks, datasets, publications and institutional knowledge.

Together they create a continuous cycle in which journalism enriches research and research strengthens journalism.

Media Operations Engine

The Media Operations Engine is the institution’s public-facing operational system.

It encompasses reporting, editing, verification, multimedia production, audience engagement, commercial publishing, conferences, public events and other activities through which the institution serves society while generating the resources necessary to sustain its mission.

Knowledge Operations Engine

The Knowledge Operations Engine is the institution’s intellectual infrastructure.

It conducts research, develops theories, constructs analytical frameworks, curates datasets, preserves institutional memory and maintains standards for methodology, research quality and knowledge governance. It transforms information into enduring knowledge.

Institutional Intelligence Cycle

The Institutional Intelligence Cycle describes the continuous movement of knowledge between journalism and research.

Reporting generates observations.

Observations generate questions.

Research transforms those questions into structured knowledge.

That knowledge subsequently enriches journalism, producing deeper reporting and more informed public discourse.

The cycle then begins again.

Knowledge therefore accumulates rather than disappears.

Institutional Memory

Institutions do not become enduring simply because they survive. They become enduring because they remember.

Institutional Memory refers to the organised preservation of knowledge generated through journalism, research, governance and public engagement. It ensures that experience accumulates across generations rather than disappearing with personnel changes, the passing of news cycles or successive algorithmic transformations.

Knowledge Stewardship

Creating knowledge is only the beginning.

Knowledge Stewardship concerns the responsibility to preserve, organise, govern and transmit that knowledge responsibly across generations.

It treats intellectual assets not as temporary outputs but as permanent institutional resources.

Knowledge Governance

If knowledge is to become an institutional asset, it must also be governed.

Knowledge Governance refers to the principles, systems and standards through which institutions ensure methodological integrity, research quality, documentation, accessibility, preservation and responsible use of knowledge.

It provides order to institutional intelligence.

Realm of the Long Term

Every institution eventually reaches the point where immediate performance gives way to long-term stewardship.

The Realm of the Long Term describes that stage in institutional development.

Here, management shifts its attention from short-term success to enduring relevance.

Leadership becomes stewardship.

Growth becomes continuity.

Performance becomes permanence of purpose.

The Seven Pillars

The Seven Pillars constitute the institutional foundations upon which the Realm of the Long Term rests:

• Financial Sustainability
• Human Capital and Leadership
• Knowledge Stewardship
• Governance
• Innovation and Adaptation
• Trust and Reputation
• Mission Continuity

Together they provide a practical philosophy for institutional endurance.

The Logic of the Long Term

The Logic of the Long Term is the principle that enduring institutions are sustained not by isolated organisational strengths but by the interaction of mutually reinforcing capabilities. Within the SPM, it explains why the Seven Pillars operate as an integrated institutional system rather than as independent functions.

Institutional Success

Within the SPM, institutional success extends beyond commercial performance. It encompasses four progressively deeper levels.

Operational Success measures present performance.

Institutional Success measures organisational endurance.

Civilisational Success measures the institution’s enduring contribution to society’s accumulated stock of knowledge.

Legacy measures Generational Influence—the extent to which an institution’s ideas, values, methods and contributions continue shaping future generations.

Success is therefore measured not only by what institutions produce, but ultimately by what continues because the institution existed.

The Triple Institutional Architecture

The SPM is not only an institutional model. Its development has also generated an emerging institutional architecture through which its principles can be expressed in practice.

That architecture consists of three complementary institutions: Sundiata Post Media Ltd., the Sundiata Post Intelligence Unit (SPIU), and the Sundiata Post Foundation.

Sundiata Post Media Ltd. constitutes the media and public-information institution. Its primary function is journalism: reporting, investigation, verification, public engagement and the dissemination of knowledge to society. The Sundiata Post Intelligence Unit (SPIU) constitutes the research and knowledge institution. Its function extends beyond journalism into original research, conceptual innovation, analytical constructs, datasets, policy research and scholarly dissemination. The development of The Insecurity Triad, the Trinity of Sovereignty Decay (TSD) and the Decoupling Sovereignty Index (DSI) demonstrates the potential for this research function to generate original intellectual contributions rather than merely reproduce existing knowledge.

The Sundiata Post Foundation constitutes the social-impact and civic-engagement institution within the wider ecosystem.

Together, these institutions form a Triple Institutional Architecture:

Media—Knowledge—Social Impact

The three institutions are distinct in function but complementary in purpose. Their differentiated institutional roles create distinct but mutually reinforcing pathways for sustaining public value.

This architecture also extends the Dual Engine Architecture of the SPM beyond the internal structure of a newsroom. The Media Operations Engine and Knowledge Operations Engine remain the core internal mechanisms of the knowledge-producing institution, while the Triple Institutional Architecture shows how those functions can connect to a wider institutional ecosystem in which journalism, research and social impact reinforce one another.

The four original constructs developed through the Sundiata Post intellectual project provide an initial proof of concept for the knowledge-producing capacity underlying this architecture.

The Triad demonstrates the capacity to develop an original analytical lens. The TSD demonstrates theoretical innovation. The DSI represents an attempt to translate theory into an empirical measurement system. The SPM itself provides the institutional model through which such knowledge can be generated, preserved and disseminated.

The significance, therefore, lies not in the existence of four ideas or three institutions independently, but in their interaction.

The constructs demonstrate intellectual production.

The institutions provide organisational embodiment.

The architecture connects knowledge production to public value.

Beyond Journalism: Strategic Management and Organisational Theory

The SPM sits at the intersection of journalism and media studies, organisational theory, and strategic management.

From journalism and media studies, it draws on the tradition of public service—a profession dedicated to informing society, strengthening democracy, and contributing to public understanding.

From organisational theory, it draws on the study of how institutions are designed, governed, sustained and renewed over time, emphasising organisational structure, institutional memory, culture, stewardship and long-term continuity.

From strategic management, it draws on the principles of institutional endurance—financial sustainability, governance, human capital development, innovation, knowledge stewardship and mission continuity.

These are not separate concerns. The SPM argues that journalism cannot fulfil its public purpose without institutional strength, and that institutional strength cannot be built without understanding journalism’s unique mission.

This interdisciplinary foundation is reflected throughout the Model—in its Dual Engine Architecture, its Seven Pillars, its measures of institutional success, and its proposed vocabulary. Each element integrates the concerns of both fields, offering a framework that is both mission-driven and institutionally grounded.

 A Living Vocabulary

No vocabulary is ever complete.

The language proposed in this series should therefore be understood as a living intellectual framework rather than a finished dictionary. As journalism evolves, new concepts will emerge. Existing concepts will be refined. Some terms may disappear altogether while others become widely adopted. That is how intellectual traditions develop.

History reminds us that new ways of understanding the world often begin when someone gives language to a previously unnamed reality. Once that language gained acceptance, the underlying ideas became easier to understand, debate and improve.

The SPM aspires to make a similar contribution. Its value will not be determined by whether every term survives unchanged, but by whether this vocabulary helps journalists, scholars, media executives and researchers think more clearly about what the newsroom of the 21st century can become.

If that conversation continues beyond these pages—if these concepts are questioned, tested, adapted and applied—then the language will have served its purpose.

Because institutions are built with systems.

Ideas are built with language.

The future of journalism will require both.

Across these seven parts, I have defined the problem, formulated a new institutional model, proposed its architecture, articulated its guiding principles, developed measures of success, and finally given it its own vocabulary. Together, these elements give the SPM its internal coherence and completeness.

A Philosophical Triad of Enduring Influences 

With humility, drawing on decades of experience at the forefront of the African media industry, a fellowship at the highest level of the Chartered Institute of Human Resource Management (CIHRM), foundational membership in the Institute of Strategic Management Nigeria, and from my desk at Sundiata Post in Abuja, I release these ideas—the Sundiata Post Model—into the world. Their future is no longer mine to determine. If they endure, it will not be because I insisted upon their importance, but because others found them worth questioning, testing, adapting and building upon.

For many years, my life journey and the arc of my interdisciplinary thinking have been shaped by a philosophical triad of enduring influences. The first is Sigmund Freud’s insight that “immortality means being known by many anonymous people”—which, to me, revealed the possibility that ideas can outlive their creators and that the truest measure of intellectual work lies not in personal recognition but in the enduring life of ideas.

The second is Edward Said’s vision of the intellectual as one who engages society’s most pressing questions with independence, integrity, and moral courage.

The third is Antonio Gramsci’s conception of the organic intellectual, which helped me see journalism as far more than the reporting of events. It reframed journalism for me as an intellectual vocation—one that interprets reality, organises knowledge, frames public understanding, and contributes to society’s accumulated stock of learning.

Together, these three influences have shaped my conception of journalism not merely as a profession, but as an intellectual vocation and a means of creating knowledge that can outlive its creator.

If, through the development of four original constructs—The Insecurity Triad, the Trinity of Sovereignty Decay, the Decoupling Sovereignty Index, and now the Sundiata Post Model—I have made a meaningful contribution in that tradition, I am content to leave the judgment to history and to those who engage with these ideas in the years ahead.

This series is concluded.

Trust is sacred. Stay seasoned.

•Dr Max Nwabueze Amuchie is an African scholar-practitioner and framework builder whose original intellectual work spans insecurity, sovereignty, institutional development, and journalism as knowledge production. His frameworks include the Insecurity Triad, the Trinity of Sovereignty Decay, the Decoupling Sovereignty Index, and the Sundiata Post Model. He is the CEO & Theorist-In-Chief of Sundiata Post, Lead Researcher at the Sundiata Post Intelligence Unit (SPIU), and an Expert Member and Peer Reviewer in Behavioural and Social Sciences at ScienceOpen.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

By Max Amuchie | The Sunday Stew

In the preceding articles, I have argued that the twenty-first-century newsroom must evolve into a knowledge-producing institution; situated that proposition within a broader intellectual tradition; introduced the Dual Engine Architecture through which journalism and knowledge production become mutually reinforcing; and proposed the Realm of the Long Term together with its Seven Pillars as the institutional foundations of enduring organisations.

A natural question now arises.

How should the success of such an institution be measured?

For decades, the commercial media industry understandably prioritised audience size and print circulation. With the rise of digital journalism, these traditional measures were increasingly supplemented—and in many cases displaced—by page views, unique visitors, click-through rates, impressions, engagement metrics and social media reach. These indicators remain valuable because they reveal important aspects of audience behaviour and commercial performance.

Yet they do not tell the whole story.

A media organisation may attract millions of readers while producing little original knowledge. It may dominate online conversations today yet leave no enduring intellectual contribution tomorrow. It may generate impressive revenue while gradually losing public trust. Conversely, an institution may produce ideas that influence scholarship, public policy and professional practice for decades without ever becoming the largest media organisation in its market.

The central proposition of the Sundiata Post Model (SPM) is therefore straightforward: institutions should ultimately be measured not merely by what they produce, but by what they leave behind.

This requires us to rethink what institutional success actually means.

Four Levels of Institutional Success

The SPM proposes that institutional success exists at four progressively deeper levels: Operational Success, Institutional Success, Civilisational Success and Legacy.

These are not competing categories. They are successive stages in the evolution of an enduring institution.

Operational Success

Operational Success concerns an institution’s ability to perform its immediate responsibilities effectively.

For a newsroom, this includes producing accurate journalism, meeting publication deadlines, maintaining editorial standards, growing audiences, generating sustainable revenue and responding effectively to the daily demands of public communication.

These are indispensable functions. Without operational competence, institutions cannot survive.

Yet Operational Success is also the most immediate form of success. It is measured in days, weeks, months and annual performance reports.

It answers a relatively simple question:

Is the institution performing well today?

Many organisations achieve Operational Success.

Far fewer move beyond it.

Institutional Success

Institutional Success represents a deeper level of achievement.

Here, attention shifts from performance to permanence.

The institution is no longer evaluated solely by today’s output but by its ability to preserve its mission while continuously renewing itself. Leadership succession becomes important. Governance becomes important. Institutional memory becomes important. Financial resilience, knowledge stewardship, innovation, public trust and organisational culture become defining concerns.

This is the Realm of the Long Term introduced in the previous article.

The central question is no longer:

How well are we performing?

Instead, it becomes:

Will this institution remain valuable twenty, fifty or one hundred years from now?

Institutions that reach this level become larger than any individual leader.

Their systems become more important than personalities.

Their mission becomes more enduring than their founders.

This transition requires institutionalisation: the process through which an institution converts individual vision, knowledge and leadership into durable systems, structures, practices and values that can survive changes in personnel and leadership.

An institution is not truly enduring if its most important knowledge exists only in the mind of one person, if its critical relationships depend entirely upon one individual, or if its strategic direction disappears when its founder departs.

Institutionalisation is therefore one of the mechanisms through which Institutional Success becomes possible. It transforms personal capacity into institutional capacity and individual achievement into organisational inheritance.

Civilisational Success

The third level extends beyond the institution itself.

Civilisational Success concerns the institution’s contribution to society’s accumulated stock of knowledge.

It occurs when an institution produces ideas, methods, frameworks, archives, research, public debates and intellectual traditions that continue shaping society long after their immediate circumstances have passed.

At this level, the institution no longer influences only its industry.

It contributes to civilisation itself.

Its ideas become reference points.

Its publications become historical records.

Its methodologies become professional standards.

Its research becomes part of society’s collective memory.

The institution’s greatest contribution is therefore not simply the news it reported, but the knowledge it helped humanity preserve.

The SPM is itself grounded in this proposition. As a model for twenty-first-century journalism, it argues that a newsroom organised as a knowledge-producing institution should be capable of generating original intellectual contributions alongside its daily journalism. The development of The Insecurity Triad, the Trinity of Sovereignty Decay (TSD), and the Decoupling Sovereignty Index (DSI) illustrates this possibility. These frameworks did not emerge from a conventional research institute or university department, but from a newsroom deliberately organised to produce knowledge as well as news. They therefore serve as a proof of concept for one of the Model’s central propositions: journalism, when institutionally designed for long-term knowledge creation, can produce intellectual assets whose influence extends beyond the news cycle.

Yet even Civilisational Success leaves one final question unanswered.

What is the highest measure of institutional success?

The SPM proposes a simple answer:

Legacy

Legacy is often misunderstood. It is commonly associated with longevity, reputation or the accomplishments of exceptional individuals. While these may contribute to legacy, they do not define it.

Institutions can exist for centuries without leaving a meaningful imprint on society. Others achieve widespread recognition during their lifetime yet fade quickly from public memory once circumstances change.

Legacy is something deeper.

It measures Generational Influence—the extent to which an institution’s ideas, values, methods and contributions continue shaping future generations.

Time alone does not create legacy.

Survival should not be mistaken for significance.

The true test of an institution is not simply whether it continues to exist, but whether its existence continues to matter.

Institutions achieve legacy when successive generations continue drawing value from what they have created. Their archives remain useful. Their research continues to be consulted. Their journalism retains historical relevance. Their ideas continue shaping public debate. Their methods become part of professional practice.

Legacy therefore transforms institutional success from a temporary achievement into a continuing public resource.

Every enduring institution eventually confronts the same reality.

Its founders leave. Leadership changes.

Generations pass.

If an institution depends entirely upon the vision or personality of a single individual, succession becomes a moment of vulnerability rather than renewal.

The question, therefore, is not simply whether an institution has a great founder or an exceptional leader. It is whether the institution can transform that individual’s vision into a capacity that belongs to the institution itself.

This is the deeper meaning of institutionalisation.

From Personality to Institution

Institutionalisation requires an organisation to deliberately convert individual capacity into institutional capacity.

It begins with the institutionalisation of mission. The institution’s purpose must be sufficiently clear and durable that it belongs to the organisation rather than to the personality of its founder.

It requires systems and processes that allow critical functions to continue regardless of who occupies a particular position. An institution becomes resilient when essential work can be reproduced through established procedures rather than dependent upon individual memory or improvisation.

It requires institutional memory. Decisions, research, methodologies, archives, lessons, relationships and intellectual work must be captured and preserved. What exists only in the mind of one person is not yet fully institutional knowledge.

It requires deliberate leadership succession. The next generation of leaders cannot be an afterthought. Institutions that intend to endure must cultivate successors before succession becomes necessary.

It requires distributed knowledge and authority. Critical knowledge, relationships and decision-making capacity should not become concentrated in a single individual. The institution must develop multiple centres of competence capable of sustaining its mission.

It requires durable governance. Governing structures, accountability mechanisms and institutional principles must be strong enough to protect the mission through changes in leadership and circumstance.

And it requires an institutional culture that reproduces the values of the organisation. The deepest form of institutionalisation occurs when the institution’s values become embedded in the behaviour of successive generations rather than remaining attached to the personality of its founder.

These seven mechanisms—mission, systems, institutional memory, succession, distributed knowledge and authority, governance, and culture—help transform an institution from a personality-driven organisation into a self-renewing institution.

The test of institutionalisation is therefore straightforward:

Can the institution continue to perform, learn, adapt and create value when the person who built it is no longer there?

If the answer is yes, the institution has begun to transcend personality.

The founder’s greatest achievement, therefore, may not be what he or she accomplishes personally, but what the institution becomes capable of accomplishing without them.

The SPM therefore treats stewardship as one of the defining responsibilities of institutional leadership. Leaders are custodians rather than owners. Their responsibility is not merely to achieve success during their own tenure but to strengthen the institution so that it serves generations they will never meet.

This is also where the distinction between journalism and knowledge production becomes most visible.

Daily reporting serves the immediate needs of society.

Knowledge serves both the present and the future.

Investigations become archives.

Research becomes scholarship.

Editorial judgement becomes institutional memory.

Original frameworks become intellectual assets.

Public records become part of society’s historical inheritance.

Every institution should therefore ask itself one final question:

If this institution ceased to exist tomorrow, what knowledge would disappear with it?

The answer reveals the depth of its institutional contribution.

An institution that merely reports events leaves little behind.

An institution that produces enduring knowledge leaves future generations with resources they would otherwise never have possessed.

That is the difference between activity and inheritance.

Between success and significance.

Between performance and legacy.

Beyond Performance

This distinction matters because institutions frequently confuse activity with achievement.

Publishing thousands of stories is activity.

Building a permanent archive of public knowledge is an achievement.

Generating revenue is an activity.

Creating financial systems that preserve editorial independence across generations is an achievement.

Winning today’s audience is an activity.

Earning public trust that survives decades is an achievement.

The SPM therefore argues that enduring institutions should evaluate themselves not merely by annual outputs but by their cumulative contribution to society.

This shifts institutional thinking from production to legacy.

The Highest Measure of Success

The SPM understands institutional success as a continuum rather than a destination.

Operational Success enables performance.

Institutional Success enables endurance.

Civilisational Success enables enduring contributions to society’s accumulated knowledge.

Legacy enables an institution’s ideas, values and contributions to continue shaping future generations.

Every institution must first learn to perform.

Some will also learn to endure.

Fewer will contribute enduring value to civilisation.

Only the rarest institutions ultimately leave a legacy that continues to enrich society long after those who built them have passed.

Institutions are ultimately remembered not for how much they produced, but for what they enabled humanity to remember, understand and build upon. That is why the highest measure of institutional success is Legacy.

Trust is sacred. Stay seasoned.

•Dr Max Nwabueze Amuchie is an African scholar-practitioner and framework builder whose original intellectual work spans insecurity, sovereignty, institutional development, and journalism as knowledge production. His frameworks include The Insecurity Triad, the Trinity of Sovereignty Decay, the Decoupling Sovereignty Index, and the Sundiata Post Model. A member of the League of Nigerian Columnists (LNC), he is the CEO & Theorist-In-Chief of Sundiata Post, Lead Researcher at the Sundiata Post Intelligence Unit (SPIU), and an Expert Member and Peer Reviewer in Behavioural and Social Sciences at ScienceOpen.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

BY BOLAJI AFOLABI

Yearly, the months of July and August are special in the calendar of educational institutions, particularly primary and secondary schools. All the days, excluding Sundays it is common to see parents, patrons, guardians, and friends coalesce at different schools celebrating the academic transitions of their children, wards, and loved ones. A few weeks back, the writer,  was in a similar situation – attended the graduation ceremony of the son of a family friend. The event was colourful and classy, as the school and students showcased high-quality performances; from musical rendition to drama presentations, spoken words, and more. Trust Nigerians, as the main event ended, the celebrations moved to the field and other available spaces within the environment, as people settled under carefully arranged canopies. Guests, family members, and many others savoured different eye-popping, and nose-enticing meals; iced-cold beverages and table water; not forgetting give-aways.

Typical of such gatherings, amid the feasting there were handshakes, back-slaps, and  chit-chats across every canopy. Discussions, at the initial stage were oscillated from sports to politics and governance. Later, “participants” pumped up the value and volume by shifting the topic to Tinubu’s administration – emphasis on the performances of his appointees. The “jury” unanimously agreed that Nyesom Wike, Dave Umahi, Festus Keyamo, Jumoke Oduwole and a few others were the star-performers among the Ministers – with the FCT boss notches ahead. The rankings of Heads of Agencies were interesting and revealing, with the National Pension Commission, (PENCOM), and Rural Electrification Agency, (REA) getting thumbs-up.  Surprisingly, an elderly man disagreed, insisting that the list will not be correct and complete without the Bureau of Public Procurement, (BPP).

While a few people were taken aback by his insistence, some others restrained from openly questioning his judgement – out of respect. Suddenly, three men, took turns corroborating the position of the senior citizen. For almost an hour, they successfully convinced many people about the achievements of the nation’s procurement regulatory agency. One of “our lecturers” declared, “unknown to people, the BPP is doing so much, and positively impacting government expenditure on public procurement by ensuring that the country gets the right value for money spent on every project.” A retired federal bureaucrat confessed that, “though I don’t agree with some policies of the Tinubu administration, but it is doing much more in terms of public expenditure through the BPP, which in the past two years has recorded tremendous achievements in diverse ways.” A middle-aged woman, working in a federal agency but preferred anonymity was emphatic, “the Bureau, through innovative and ingenious approaches has contributed hugely to President Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda.”

With special interests in public policy, corporate governance, and leadership, the writer, enamoured by the persuasive and matter-of-fact deliveries of the previous speakers was somewhat shocked by the concluding parts of the female “lecturer.” Somehow, one concluded that, though many people were convinced about the laudable contributions of the BPP to public procurement and government expenditure, its impact on the present administration’s agenda demands further scrutiny. For weeks, the writer embarked on discreet inquisition of the Bureau’s input to government reforms as it relates to public procurement and expenditure on critical sectors. The robust exercise included the verification of the Bureau’s relevance to the “Renewed Hope Agenda” of President Bola Tinubu.

From available records, the “Renewed Hope Agenda” ((RHA) can be categorized into eight (8) areas –  Economic Growth; Infrastructure; Security; Rule of Law/Anti-Corruption; Education; Healthcare; Food Security; and Poverty Eradication. No doubt, these are tangent to the well-being of the people by providing the pathway for national development, and ensuring meaningful transformation. Further analysis reveals that the RHA encompasses critical sectors such as roads and other infrastructures; education; healthcare; water; power; environment; and economy. These are domiciled in some MDAs including Works & Housing; Power; Health & Humanitarian Services; Education; FCTA; Aviation & Aerospace Development.

Findings and reports reveal that the BPP has been contributing largely to purpose-driven and results-yielding public expenditure. More importantly, it has,  through inclusive procurement processes directly supported the RHA in key areas. The Bureau, under the leadership of Dr. Adebowale Adedokun has aligned and delivered through Institutional Strengthening and Anti-Corruption – which is core to Renewed Hope, “RH” governance reforms. With the re-branding of its price intelligence  and due process unit, over-invoicing is not only being eliminated but MDAs get value for monies expended on public procurements – saving public funds for other RH projects. Also, the External Cooperation Unit, (ECU) which was  created to tap global best practices and resources has impacted positively in reducing cases of price variations – hitherto avenue for financial leakages. Similarly, the BPP is deepening regulatory enforcement as MDAs are aligning with procurement standards and ethics which, in the long run will drive performances, service delivery, and good governance.

Deploying effective and efficient mechanisms on project delivery oversight, the BPP ensures that infrastructural projects under the RHA are not inflated, but also meet quality specifications. These are evidenced in critical projects; completed or on-going in Ministries of Works, FCT, Aviation & Aerospace Development, Health, Water Resources, and a few others. Similarly, the Bureau’s monitoring and evaluation framework tracks procurement processes and outcomes, and ensures that public projects under the RHA are delivered on time and complies with budgetary directives. As a major stakeholder in the actualization of the RHA, the Bureau has emplaced procurement processes for supporting MSMEs. Through this initiative – which aligns with the RHAs private sector led approach to economic growth – equitable opportunities are given to women, youths, and people living with disabilities to access and benefit from public procurement expenditures.

The Bureau’s commitment to human capital development as a cornerstone for sustainable national growth and development; which aligns with the RHA has contributed to capacity building and job creation. Through its partnership with the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (United Kingdom), over 8,000 procurement officers are being trained locally; professionalizing the profession, and creating a globally competitive workforce. Instructively, there are reports that some Nigerians, who benefitted from the BPP/CIPS (UK) training and certification are now employed by reputable global organizations and multinational bodies. Further to Adedokun’s belief that “collaboration in capacity building can be deployed towards ensuring that different strata of the society are prepared for economic growth,” the BPP in partnership with local and foreign organizations have been conducting procurement-linked empowerment programmes for women; impact on the informal sector has been encouraging.

True, the contributions of the BPP to the RHA, and more importantly,  economic growth and development cannot be painstakingly discussed in one article. The audacious statement of the middle-aged woman about the BPP needs no disapproval – they are right, true, and spot-on. The Bureau’s laudable contributions in ensuring that public spending on projects are cleaner, cheaper, more inclusive, more professional, and more valuable deserves commendations. That the landmarks were achieved by the Bureau’s present leadership, in about three years is a glowing testament to the capacity, vision, focus, resilience, and unity of purpose of the Director-General, the management staff, and other staff members. Interestingly, Adedokun, at every occasion always confess that, “the fatherly support, belief, and wonderful political will from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has made it possible for us (BPP) to discharge our (BPP) responsibilities. He deserves all the credit and honour for whatever we (BPP) are doing.”

* BOLAJI AFOLABI, a Development Communications specialist was with the Office of Public Affairs, The Presidency, Abuja.