It’s no longer surprising that successful people and experts in their fields are often targets of attacks, criticism and slander. But what’s most concerning is when the media becomes the willing platforms for sponsored attacks. This is clearly the case of Norman Bwuruk Didam, the CEO of Viva Atlantic and Technology House limited.
Few weeks back, reports were published across various news platforms, referencing a World Bank announcement about the debarment of Mr Didam and his companies. Unfortunately, many Nigerian media outlets reported this without verifying the facts, failing to conduct due diligence, raising concerns about the motive behind this kind of publicity. It appears to me as a gang-up by both competitors; rivals and entities who want to score cheap popularity and by those who want to create the impression that some people are actually doing their job.
Based on my research of the matter, in 2018, a World Bank financed contract was awarded to Didam’s company-Viva Atlantic limited by the National Social Safety Net Coordinating Office, after it successfully qualified as the winning bidder. The contract was officially awarded on December 20, 2018 and was completed on April 30, 2019 – within just five months. A letter of job completion was issued indicating satisfaction with the quality, specifications and speed of execution.
Almost six years later, on the 15th of January 2025, the World Bank’s decision banning Viva Atlantic and Technology House for 30 months was published on its website, accusing these companies for utilizing insider information, collusive practice and corruption. I searched and researched to find if there was a previous publication about this matter but found none.
But in a surprising twist, interested parties waited for about a week, 21st January 2025 precisely, before sponsoring the extraction and wide publications on various local platforms in Nigeria. This delayed release is questionable and ostensibly aimed at undermining a young and promising entrepreneur. This has left the public to speculate on the true motives and timeline behind investigating a contract awarded and completed six years ago.
Many critical minds have questioned why the CEO and his companies were subjected to this kind of publicity having satisfactorily completed the job without any complaint on quality, specification or speed. No allegation of corruption previously reported or siphoning of funds nor inflation of contract sum as well as breaking of any law and order. I would have thought that the bank should have been targeting those who abandoned or failed to complete projects based on specifications and timelines instead of blacklisting and shaming those who completed theirs. Would the media react to news of debarment for companies that failed to complete or abandoned their contracts? Should the accused be the only target? I find it quite shocking, damning and bias. The report mentioned inducement but failed to mention the names of the people who were induced.
From my research, it was a token of appreciation which was done after the project execution. It’s akin to the practice of taking hampers or even cash equivalent to clients after providing services which is often viewed as public relations or appreciation, as is common practice in many organisations in Nigeria. But then, if the bank must punish the giver of, “items of value to public officials “why not equally punish the public officials that received the “items of value”? Instead the bank conveniently shielded them from the publication. Are they not culpable?
From my findings and observations, it also appears that an interested party (ies) and business rivals may have orchestrated the whole process and waited for the news to break and then sponsored the viral publications in Nigerian newspapers, targeting him and his companies. The intention seems not to improve the system, but to frustrate the entrepreneur, block his access to projects and contracts, tarnish his image and destroy his business goodwill. It is a very sadistic approach and a “crab mentality” to winning in business.
One can only imagine how this report may have subjected the entrepreneur and his companies to a helpless situation of having no opportunity or the platform to present their own side of the story. This is why as journalist we should not fold our hands and watch when we feel an injustice has been committed, irrespective of the entity that committed the injustice. Because such publication is capable of subjecting the individuals to psychological trauma and affect their future business dealings with potential clients. To want to run down a man simply because of a contract that may not be too significant to an organization such as the World Bank is petty.
Does the bank consider the effect of such negative report even on the psyche of individuals? Why publish on its website in the first place when it’s mainly about a suspension for a period of time? One would wonder if the bank is an infallible organization that has the right and the jurisdiction to be prosecutor, judge and jury without giving fair trial to those it accused. If you would have to ban a company publicly and then invite the company back to business after a period, then why bother? Why not simply inform the individual or the company that their services are no longer required as it applies everywhere rather than damaging their reputation publicly and causing them to lose other potential clients and partnerships? Are debarred companies by the bank entitled to compensation after being released from debarment? If not then it is a grave injustice to the entities. Does third party client have exclusive moral and legal right to debar their suppliers and contractors publicly without trial after totally benefiting from the services provided?
From my viewpoint, an injustice has been committed to a helpless and harmless individual who seems to have no power or ability to respond and this may be the reality of many other individuals and entities who suffer the same fate. I would have thought that it is in the interest of human and capital development (as being championed by so-called development partners) that young people who venture into businesses, and commit their energy, resources, intellect, and innovations to such, be encouraged to thrive, not to be suppressed by envious entities and the might of this world.
Ali Adoyi writes from Abuja, Nigeria.