By TUOYO BRIKINS
The storm surrounding Sujimoto Luxury Construction Limited and the Enugu State Government has gripped national attention. What began as a bold initiative to build 22 Smart Green Schools has now spiraled into allegations of a ₦5.7 billion fraud, a wanted CEO, and urgent questions about Nigeria’s contract management culture.
Being a publisher of a platform on the built environment #RealEstateNews and having managed built environment facilities for a multinational corporation, I could relate.
At the heart of the controversy is a troubling contradiction. Sujimoto presented a bond from Jaiz Bank to secure the project, yet the state government disbursed half of the contract sum—over ₦5.7 billion—into a Zenith Bank account. That single act stripped the bond of its protective force and left the state exposed.
In global best practice, performance bonds exist to safeguard the client. If the contractor defaults, the bond guarantees recovery. But by bypassing the bond, the state undermined its own shield. This is the first painful lesson: financial safeguards must never be symbolic—they must be operational.
The second lesson lies in the payment structure. The state chose to release 50% of the project cost upfront. In the built environment sector, payments are typically tied to milestones: excavation, foundation, superstructure, roofing, finishing, and final handover. Each stage requires certified inspection before money moves. Without this control, projects are vulnerable to abandonment, shoddy work, and inflated claims.
According to government reports, Sujimoto’s sites were either poorly executed or left untouched. By May 2025, almost a year after the contract award, joint EFCC and Ministry of Works inspections found little to no meaningful progress. This prompted the state to re-award the contracts to other firms, who now face the daunting task of starting afresh.
But was the re-award hasty? Some observers think so. Terminating and re-awarding without a transparent process risks litigation. Contractors—no matter how embattled—retain the right to defend themselves. Best practice requires documentation of default, formal termination notices, and an open re-tendering process.
Now, multiple stakeholders stand at a crossroads:
EFCC must follow the money trail and recover public funds.
Sujimoto must present verifiable evidence of work done or negotiate settlement to protect what remains of its brand.
Enugu State Government must tighten procurement processes and tie future disbursements strictly to milestones.
New contractors must deliver with transparency and quality to restore faith in public projects.
The implications are enormous. Beyond financial loss, Nigeria’s reputation in public-private contracting takes another hit. Investors and partners watch closely, questioning whether safeguards work in our system.
Yet, this crisis offers a blueprint for reform. Milestone-based payments, enforceable performance bonds, early intervention when red flags emerge, and transparent re-awards are not luxuries—they are the foundations of accountability in the built environment.
For contractors, one truth stands firm: reputations take decades to build but only moments to destroy. For governments, shortcuts in due diligence can cost billions and erode public trust. For the industry at large, this scandal is not just a story of fraud—it is a call to restore discipline, integrity, and best practice.
@Ambassador T. Brikins is the Publisher, RealEstateNews
