An explosive investigation has unearthed a sequence of actions that appear to have converted Kano State’s 20% equity in the Dala Inland Dry Port into private holdings — holdings that, according to published reports, ended up in the hands of associates and members of former Governor Abdullahi Umar Ganduje’s family. The probe raises urgent questions about process, accountability and the appropriate use of public office.
What allegedly happened
Kano State originally held a 20% equity stake in Dala Inland Dry Port Nigeria Limited — a stake acquired in 2006 as part of a public–private arrangement: private operators would run the port while the state’s contribution was to be delivered in the form of infrastructure (roads, fencing, electricity and water) to the project site in Kumbotso Local Government Area. But records and corporate filings reviewed by investigative reporters show that, in 2020, the state’s percentage ownership was removed and shares were reallocated so that three of Ganduje’s children (Abdulaziz Abdullahi Umar, Umar Abdullahi Umar and Muhammad Abdullahi Umar) received large allotments of shares and were appointed directors at a company annual general meeting held on March 5, 2020. Those allotments reportedly represented blocks equivalent to 20% each of the company’s quoted 25 million shares.
The contract that followed
Shortly after the alleged change in ownership, the then-governor (still holding executive office) awarded a contract to a firm linked to family or associates to deliver the very infrastructure the state had originally committed to provide as part of its equity — work valued at N2.3 billion in July 2020 and later revised to in excess of N4 billion. Investigative reporting indicates the contract was to make good on roads, fencing and other site services for the dry port, effectively transferring public responsibility into a paid engagement with private actors who had, by that time, become the port’s owners.
Share consolidation and ultimate control
Further reporting suggests that, in 2022, the shares originally allotted to Ganduje’s children were later transferred to a business associate, Abubakar Bawuro — consolidating control such that Bawuro became the holder of 80% of the company while Ahmad Rabiu, the original founder, retained 20%. The resulting ownership structure left the state with no visible equity or control despite earlier agreements that the state would remain a co-owner in return for delivering infrastructure.
Legal and procedural red flags
Legal experts quoted in these reports argue the transfer process did not follow due process. For example, after approval by a state executive council, SEC and public-procurement rules typically require transparent disposal or divestment procedures — including public notices and open tenders where applicable. The manner and timing of the corporate resolutions and share allotments, combined with the later award of a multi-billion-naira contract to parties allegedly linked to those share allocations, have led critics to characterise the sequence as a glaring conflict of interest and potential abuse of office.
Response from the Kano State government
The current Kano administration under Governor Abba Yusuf has publicly stated that official records still list the state as a stakeholder in the Dala Inland Dry Port and announced investigations into how private individuals came to control the purported 80% ownership. That inquiry — according to state spokespeople quoted in the reporting — aims to reconcile company filings with government records and to determine whether any statutory or criminal breaches occurred.
Why this matters
Dry ports and inland logistics hubs are strategic infrastructure: they can lower trade costs, attract private investment, and create jobs across supply chains. When public equity is pledged to secure long-term public benefits (access routes, utilities, security), allowing that equity to be privately appropriated — intentionally or not — risks depriving citizens of anticipated public value. The optics and mechanics of these transactions are therefore central to public trust and to the integrity of governance processes.
Open questions and next steps
Several important questions remain unanswered in public reporting and should be the focus of transparent enquiries:
Were statutory procedures for divestment, share allotment and company director appointments followed and documented (board minutes, SEC filings, public notices)?
What contractual justification was used to award the infrastructure contract to the named company, and were procurement rules fully observed?
Did the state actually fulfil — or fail to fulfil — its infrastructure obligations prior to the transfer, and if it failed, why was public ownership not enforced or reinstated?
If state records still show a 20% stake, how do those records reconcile with company registries showing private ownership?
Conclusion
The Premium Times investigation — corroborated by multiple national outlets — paints a troubling picture of public interest allegedly sidelined by private gain. Whether the pattern it describes will withstand legal scrutiny remains to be seen; what is clear is that the Dala Inland Dry Port episode will test Kano’s institutions: its procurement apparatus, its corporate regulators, and its anti-corruption mechanisms. For citizens and investors alike, the ultimate outcome should prioritise clarity, restitution where appropriate, and reforms that prevent the conversion of public equity into private windfalls without due process.
0 Comments