NEFB issued N1,022 certificates of compliance … since inception

The Nigeria Enterprises and Promotion Board, NEPB, issued a total of 1,022 Provisional Certificate of compliance since its inception in 1977.
According to The Republic investigation, the NEPB issued only one Provisional Certificate of Compliance to the first company to comply with the act in 1977 while in 1978, the board issued 5 certificate of compliance to 5 companies.
According to investigation, the low level of compliance in 1977 and 1978 led the then federal government to issue a deadline for companies to comply with the provision by the year end 1979.
As a result of the ultimatum, a total of 883 companies complied with the provision of the NEPB act and were thus issued with letters of compliance.
This was the highest ever since the board was set up.
In 1980, 57 companies complied, while 456 met the boards legal provision in 1981.
In 1982, and 83 only 14 companies complied with 7 for each year. In 1984 however, 306 companies got certificates of compliance from the board having met the board’s guidelines. According to investigation, 96 companies satisfied the board provision and were thus issued with letter of compliance. In 1986 only 5 companies complied while 37 companies complied last year.
Sources close to NEPB also disclosed that letter of compliance are issued on provisional basis as such letters could be withdrawn anytime a company fails to meet with the legal provision of the board.
The sources also disclosed that inspection of companies is carried out by the NEPB on continuous basis.
According to the source, companies schedule II and III are expected to adhere strictly to the 60: 40, 40.60 ratio provided in the NEPB Act.
Companies are also expected to meet given expatriate quotas. Companies which failed to meet the board’s guidelines are either placed on co-management in which case the NEPB takes a seat in management decision making or in authorising financial disbursement of the company or seal up in which case the company officials are refused access to the company’s premises.