An investigation into Abiodun Tobun’s reported business interests, two government contract awards and the conflict-of-interest safeguards designed to protect public procurement.
By Digital Frontier Journal
Introduction: When Oversight and Private Interests Intersect
Public procurement is one of the most important tests of government accountability. Every contract awarded by a state government represents a decision about how public money will be spent, which businesses will benefit and whether taxpayers will receive value for their money.
That is why a recent investigation by the Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ) deserves close scrutiny.
In a report published on October 19, 2026, FIJ reported that Tobic General Merchants & Co. Limited, a company in which Lagos State House of Assembly member Abiodun Tobun reportedly holds a 90% stake, received two contracts from the Lagos State Government in 2025 worth a combined ₦114,850,958.86.
The first contract, valued at ₦99,977,937.69, concerned the renovation of distressed factory units and a gatehouse at the Small Scale Industrial Estate in Matori, Mushin. It was awarded by the Lagos State Ministry of Commerce, Cooperatives, Trade and Investment.
The second contract, worth ₦14,873,021.17, covered renovation of the roof of staff quarters at Block 13, Oladele Kadri, Ogba Phase II. The contract was awarded by the Ministry of Works and Infrastructure.
According to FIJ, the awards occurred approximately five weeks apart towards the end of 2025. The company's reported ownership and the lawmaker's committee responsibilities raise questions about whether the necessary safeguards against conflicts of interest were applied.
The central issue is not whether a politician is automatically prohibited from having any private financial interest. It is whether a public official's private interests overlap with public responsibilities in ways that could compromise—or reasonably appear to compromise—the impartial allocation of public resources.
The available reporting establishes a basis for serious scrutiny. It does not, by itself, prove that the contracts were improperly awarded, that Tobun influenced the procurement process or that the projects were not delivered.
Those questions require documentary evidence, explanations from the relevant authorities and an examination of the procurement process.
The Numbers Behind the Contracts
The two awards reported by FIJ are significant because they involve separate ministries and different public projects.
| Contract |
Procuring ministry |
Reported value |
| Renovation of factory units and a gatehouse at Matori Industrial Estate |
Commerce, Cooperatives, Trade and Investment |
₦99,977,937.69 |
| Renovation of staff-quarter roofing at Ogba Phase II |
Works and Infrastructure |
₦14,873,021.17 |
| Combined value |
Two ministries |
₦114,850,958.86 |
Source: FIJ's report on the 2025 Lagos State contract award register.
The first contract accounts for the overwhelming majority of the combined value. The second is smaller, but it matters because the procurement involves another ministry with which Tobun had a documented history of legislative oversight.
The timing also deserves attention. FIJ reported that Tobic General Merchants was incorporated in 2024 and secured the contracts in 2025, meaning the company was relatively young when it received the awards.
A company's age is not, on its own, proof that it is unqualified to execute a government contract. New businesses can employ experienced professionals, possess adequate capital and deliver quality work.
However, the shorter a company's operating history, the more important it becomes to establish how the procuring authority assessed its experience, technical capacity, personnel, financial resources and ability to complete the work.
The proper question is not simply why a young company received contracts. It is whether the company satisfied the applicable requirements and whether the process was competitive, transparent and properly documented.
The Ownership Question: Who Controls Tobic General Merchants?
One of the most important elements of FIJ's investigation concerns beneficial ownership.
According to the report, Nigeria's Corporate Affairs Commission beneficial ownership register identified Tobun as holding a 90% or greater stake in Tobic General Merchants & Co. Limited. FIJ also reported that he was the only beneficial owner declared by the company since 2024.
Beneficial ownership information is intended to make it harder for individuals to conceal their financial interests behind companies or intermediaries. In public procurement, it can help authorities identify connections between bidders and people involved in government decision-making.
In this case, the reported ownership information matters because Tobun was not merely a legislator with an indirect connection to a contractor. The published report identifies him as the company's majority beneficial owner.
That finding raises several questions:
- Did the company disclose its ownership and all relevant interests during the procurement process?
- Did the ministries know that a serving lawmaker held the reported majority stake?
- Were conflict-of-interest checks conducted before the contracts were awarded?
- Did the company meet the applicable financial, technical and professional requirements?
- Did Tobun participate in any legislative, administrative or informal activity connected to the contracts?
- Were any formal disclosures, recusals or other safeguards documented?
These questions cannot be answered conclusively from the ownership entry alone.
A beneficial ownership record establishes a reported ownership interest; it does not establish who managed the company's day-to-day operations, who prepared its bids, who negotiated the contracts or whether the lawmaker influenced any decision.
Those distinctions matter. An investigation should follow the evidence rather than treating ownership as proof of misconduct.
Nevertheless, a substantial private interest in a company receiving public contracts is precisely the kind of relationship that warrants careful examination when the owner also holds a public office with relevant oversight responsibilities.
The First Overlap: A Company Wins a Contract From a Ministry Under Legislative Oversight
Tobun represents Epe Constituency I in the Lagos State House of Assembly and chairs the House Committee on Industry, Commerce and Cooperatives, according to the information cited in FIJ's report. The committee's responsibilities include oversight of the commerce ministry that awarded the ₦99.98 million contract.
Legislative oversight is an essential component of democratic government. Committees examine ministry budgets, question officials, review spending and scrutinise whether public agencies are delivering the services and projects for which funds have been allocated.
That authority is not the same as direct control over every procurement decision. A committee chairman does not automatically select contractors, approve every tender or administer a ministry's daily operations.
But oversight creates a responsibility to maintain public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the legislative process.
When a company in which a committee chairman has a substantial financial interest receives a contract from a ministry within that committee's remit, the relationship deserves disclosure and scrutiny—even if there is no evidence that the chairman participated in the award.
The concern is not merely whether the lawmaker personally signed a procurement document. It is whether the institutions involved had adequate safeguards to prevent private interests from affecting public decisions or creating a reasonable perception that the process was compromised.
A credible response would require the ministry and procurement authorities to explain what they knew about the company's ownership, what conflict checks were performed and whether the relevant decisions were made independently.
The Second Contract: A Former Oversight Role Still Matters
The ₦14.87 million roofing contract introduces a different but related issue.
FIJ reported that Tobun previously chaired the House Committee on Works and Infrastructure for eight years, between 2015 and 2023. The second contract was awarded by the Ministry of Works and Infrastructure in December 2025.
The distinction between current and former responsibilities is important.
The reporting does not establish that Tobun was still chairing the works committee when the roofing contract was awarded. It would therefore be inaccurate to describe the second award as conclusively occurring under his direct, contemporaneous committee supervision.
However, the history is relevant to a wider examination of his public responsibilities and private business interests. It also creates a reason to ask whether the ministry had adequate information about the company's ownership and whether the contract followed the required procurement procedures.
A former oversight role, by itself, does not prove improper influence over a later procurement. Nor does the fact that a contractor receives more than one public contract establish wrongdoing.
The evidence required would include the tender records, the identities of competing bidders, the evaluation report, approval documents, relevant declarations and any communications indicating that the lawmaker participated in or sought to influence the process.
Without those records, the relationship raises legitimate questions but does not settle them.
What Does Lagos State Procurement Law Require?
The legal framework provides a way to distinguish an appearance of conflict from evidence of an offence.
FIJ's report refers to Section 87 of the Lagos State Public Procurement Law 2021, which addresses conduct including unlawful influence and attempts to influence procurement processes to obtain an advantage in the award of a contract. The report also cites the Lagos State Public Procurement Agency's regulations and code of conduct.
The agency's published Code of Conduct for government personnel involved in procurement contains several relevant provisions.
Paragraph 10 prohibits procurement officials from participating in activities that could create a perception that they favour a particular bidder.
Paragraph 12 requires impartiality in procurement proceedings.
Paragraph 13 requires public officers involved in procurement to decline participation where a bidder's success would confer a pecuniary or other advantage on them, or where a relevant relationship exists. It also requires written disclosure to the appropriate authorities in the circumstances described by the code.
These rules are designed to protect the integrity of procurement decisions. They recognise that the public interest can be undermined not only by proven bribery, but also by arrangements that create opportunities for private interests to affect official decisions.
However, the provisions must be applied to the correct individuals and activities.
The procurement code's specific duties apply to public officers involved in procurement proceedings. The fact that a lawmaker owns shares in a contractor does not automatically establish that he participated in a tender or breached a provision directed at procurement personnel.
The relevant investigation must establish what role, if any, Tobun played; whether he had a duty to disclose or recuse himself under the applicable rules; and whether any prohibited influence or other misconduct occurred.
The law should neither be ignored nor stretched beyond what the evidence establishes.
What Does the Nigerian Constitution Say About Public Officials and Private Business?
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria also provides a framework for examining conflicts between personal interests and public responsibilities.
Paragraph 1 of Part I of the Fifth Schedule states that a public officer must not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts with his duties and responsibilities.
Paragraph 2(b) addresses participation in the management or running of private business, profession or trade, subject to the wording and exceptions set out in the provision. Members of state Houses of Assembly are among the public officers identified in the Code of Conduct provisions.
This makes the question of Tobun's relationship with Tobic General Merchants more significant than a routine inquiry into a politician's business interests.
But constitutional interpretation requires precision. The reported 90% ownership interest does not, by itself, establish the extent of his involvement in the company's management or prove a constitutional breach.
An informed assessment would require evidence about his actual role in the business, the applicable legal interpretation, any relevant disclosures and the circumstances surrounding the contracts.
The proper course is for the competent authorities to examine these facts rather than to declare a violation solely on the basis of a company ownership entry.
The Procurement Records That Should Be Made Public
The most productive next step is to move beyond the headline and examine the records behind the two awards.
A public contract is not adequately explained by publishing the contractor's name and the amount awarded. Citizens should be able to establish how the winning bidder was selected, whether the company met the relevant requirements and whether the government received the work it paid for.
In this case, several documents would help resolve the outstanding questions.
1. The tender and bidding documents. These should identify the procurement method, eligibility requirements, deadlines and the conditions under which bids were evaluated.
2. The list of bidders. The public should be able to establish how many companies competed, where competition was advertised and whether any bids were rejected.
3. The technical and financial evaluation reports. These would show how the successful bidder was assessed against the required specifications, price and other relevant criteria.
4. The award and approval documents. These should identify the responsible officials, the applicable approval process and the reasons the contract was awarded to the selected company.
5. The company's qualification records. These should establish its financial capacity, personnel, technical resources and relevant experience at the time of bidding.
6. The conflict-of-interest declarations. These would help determine whether the relevant public officers and procurement personnel disclosed relationships that required disclosure or recusal.
7. The project execution and payment records. These should establish whether the work was delivered, inspected, certified and paid for in accordance with the contract.
8. The beneficial ownership disclosure submitted during bidding. Comparing the company's ownership records with the procurement documents could help establish what the procuring entities knew about its ownership at the time.
The Lagos State Public Procurement Agency states that its responsibilities include promoting transparency, accountability and value for money, as well as certifying procurements before, during and after contract awards. Its own published guidelines identify accountability, transparency, impartiality, integrity and value for money as core principles of procurement.
These are not merely administrative ideals. They are the standards against which the two awards should be examined.
The Lawmaker's Response Is Essential
FIJ reported that it attempted to contact Tobun using a phone number obtained from a directory of Lagos public office holders. The publication said that calls, WhatsApp messages and text messages sent on October 14 had not received a response by the time its report was published.
It also reported difficulties contacting him through the Lagos State House of Assembly's website and said that an inquiry sent through the Assembly's official email received an automated acknowledgement.
The absence of a response in that report should not be treated as an admission of wrongdoing.
Tobun should be given a clear opportunity to address the specific issues raised by the published records. That response should establish whether he had any role in the company's management, whether he disclosed his financial interest to the relevant authorities and whether he participated in any matter connected with the two contracts.
The Lagos State Government should also explain the procurement process.
The commerce ministry should publish the records supporting the Matori award. The works ministry should provide the corresponding documentation for the Ogba roofing contract. The procurement agency should clarify what compliance checks were conducted and whether any conflict-of-interest declarations or recusals were recorded.
The company should be given an opportunity to explain its qualifications and the process through which it secured the awards.
A serious investigation must seek evidence from all relevant parties, including evidence that could establish that the contracts were properly awarded.
Why This Matters Beyond One Lawmaker
The wider issue is the credibility of public procurement in Lagos State.
Government contracts can create legitimate business opportunities, support employment and deliver essential infrastructure. Public officials are also entitled to the legal protections and due process available to everyone else.
But when a serving lawmaker's company reportedly receives substantial contracts from ministries connected to his oversight responsibilities, public confidence depends on more than assurances that the process was lawful.
The relevant records must be available for independent examination.
The same standards should apply regardless of the politician's party, constituency, seniority or relationship with the government. Procurement transparency cannot be reserved for cases involving political opponents, nor should an allegation be accepted as proven merely because it fits an existing public suspicion.
The objective should be a consistent system in which every bidder competes under known rules, every award can be explained and every potential conflict is disclosed and managed.
That standard protects taxpayers, legitimate businesses and public officials who have complied with their obligations.
It also makes it harder for genuine wrongdoing to hide behind political loyalties or unsupported accusations.
Conclusion: Publish the Records, Follow the Evidence
The FIJ investigation raises a legitimate public-interest question: how did a company reportedly 90% owned by a serving Lagos lawmaker secure two government contracts worth ₦114.85 million, including one from a ministry within his legislative committee's oversight?
The reported awards and ownership information justify scrutiny. The relevant procurement rules and constitutional provisions make it important to examine the relationship between the lawmaker's financial interests and his public responsibilities.
But an evidence-based investigation must preserve the distinction between a conflict-of-interest concern and a proven offence.
The available reporting does not establish that Tobun rigged a tender, improperly influenced a ministry, received a personal payment from the contracts or that the projects were not executed. Those conclusions would require additional evidence.
What is needed now is disclosure: the bidding documents, evaluation reports, approvals, ownership declarations, conflict-of-interest records, inspection reports and payment certificates.
Tobun should explain his relationship with the company and any steps taken to prevent his public responsibilities from conflicting with his private interests. The ministries and procurement authorities should demonstrate that the awards complied with the applicable rules and delivered value for money.
Public office carries a responsibility to protect the public interest. Where private business and public oversight intersect, transparency is the most reliable way to establish whether that responsibility has been honoured.
The question is not whether a politician's company can ever do business with government. It is whether the process is lawful, impartial, competitive and transparent—and whether the public can examine the evidence for itself.
That is what Lagos taxpayers deserve.
Sources and documentary basis
- Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ), “EXPOSED: Lagos Lawmaker Tobun Abiodun’s Company ‘Wins’ N114m Contract From Ministries Under His Supervision,” published October 19, 2026.
- Lagos State Public Procurement Agency, Code of Conduct for Lagos State Government Personnel Involved with Public Procurement.
- Lagos State Public Procurement Agency, Procurement Regulations and Guidelines for Potential Bidders.
- Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Fifth Schedule, Part I, Code of Conduct for Public Officers.
Comments
Post a Comment