I thank Mr. Fazir Khan, President of the JCC, for his thoughtful engagement on the question of annual procurement planning under the Public Procurement and Dispoal of Public Property Act (PPDPPA) in the Business Guardian of December 4, under the headline ‘The OPRs approach is pragmatic.’
Constructive debate strengthens public governance, and his intervention reflects a shared commitment to a procurement system capable of delivering coherence, discipline and public value.
However, several clarifications are necessary for the public record.
First, the OPR’s communiqué of November 12 did not merely adjust emphasis or timing. It expressly stated that the Annual Procurement Plan (APP) is “not mandatory” and that the General Guidelines will be amended accordingly. This is significant because the current General Guidelines on Developing the Annual Procurement Plan state plainly:
“The Plan must be transmitted within six (6) weeks of the approval of the National Budget to the OPR for its review and noting.” (General Guidelines, p.2)
Until lawfully amended, those Guidelines remain in force. A regulator may revise guidance prospectively, but it cannot, through a communiqué alone, disapply an existing binding requirement. This is not interpretation; it is elementary administrative law.
Second, Mr. Khan suggests the communiqué can be understood as pragmatic sequencing during a year of administrative transition. That explanation appears nowhere in the communiqué and has never been offered by the OPR.
More importantly, it is inconsistent with the facts: since proclamation in April 2023, public bodies, under both administrations, have consistently failed to produce compliant APPs. The difficulty has been systemic, structural and long-standing, not episodic or political.
Third, as far as I am aware, the OPR had never previously signalled any intention to amend the General Guidelines on Annual Procurement Planning. Public bodies, practitioners and auditors have therefore been operating on the basis that those Guidelines remain in effect. Announcing their modification now is not “temporary flexibility;’ it is a substantive regulatory shift. If all that was intended was short-term accommodation, there would be no need to alter the Guidelines themselves. It understandably prompts the question of why a cornerstone safeguard in the governance architecture is being weakened rather than reinforced.
Mr. Khan also commends the OPR for insisting on the timely publication of the Annual Schedule of Planned Procurement Activities ASPPAs. It is worth noting, however, that public bodies have been publishing ASPPAs from the inception of the regime and the OPR has consistently accepted this. Nothing new has been introduced on that front. My concern is not the emphasis on ASPPAs, which serve the transparency function of section 27(1), but the novel assertion that the APP was not mandatory and that the Guidelines will now be changed accordingly. The ASPPA was always intended to be the public-facing output of the APP; it was never intended to replace it.
Since publication of my column, the OPR has also provided clarification in correspondence dated November 25, 2025. I appreciate the Office’s engagement. However, the position taken, that the APP remains a key internal control and part of the integrated planning–execution–performance framework, yet the Office does not require adherence to the existing Guidelines pending their future amendment, reinforces rather than resolves the concern. U
nder section 30(1)(a), those Guidelines remain binding until amended. A communiqué cannot lawfully amend or suspend them. Only a revised OPR Guideline, Handbook, Regulation or amendment to the PPDPPA can do so.
Where Mr. Khan and I are fully aligned is on the substantive purpose of procurement planning. The APP is not a bureaucratic artefact. It is the analytical mechanism through which demand forecasting, category strategies, risk assessment and alignment with mandate and budget converge. The ASPPA, important as it is for transparency, cannot, and was never intended to. substitute for that strategic function.
This is also why Annual Procurement Planning is universally treated in international best practice as a primary integrity safeguard. Whether in the OECD model, the World Bank Framework, or the EU Directives, forward planning is central to reducing ad-hoc purchasing, maverick spend, spend forced by external pressures, emergency extensions and last-minute contracting, conditions that correlate strongly with integrity risks.
Our own recent operational failures demonstrate how the absence of structured planning allows budget overruns, opaque renewals and allegations of impropriety to arise. Against that backdrop, the rationale for stepping away from a well-established control warrants clear articulation.
If the OPR intends to recalibrate the procurement-planning architecture, the reasons for that change must be explained, because such a shift alters not only process but the governance logic of the Act itself, and the country is entitled to understand the public-interest purpose any such change is meant to serve.
Dr Margaret Satya Rose, attorney at law, is Head of Satya Juris Chambers and Founder & CEO of Procurement Compliance Plus Limited, a procurement consulting and capacity building firm. Dr Rose can be contacted at mrose@procurementcomplianceplus.com
