The House of Representatives has launched an investigation into nearly US$1 million in agricultural procurement transactions involving the Ministry of Agriculture following allegations of inflated prices, questionable deliveries, and possible financial irregularities in the purchase of fertilizers, herbicides, seed rice, and cattle.

The House on Thursday constituted a specialized committee to investigate allegations raised by Nimba County District #5 Representative Kortor Sehwongbay Kwague, who questioned whether agricultural inputs and livestock purchased with public funds were acquired at reasonable prices, delivered in the contracted quantities, and distributed to their intended beneficiaries.

Speaker Richard Nagbe Koon, in consultation with Deputy Speaker Thomas P. Fallah, appointed the committee and mandated it to submit its findings and recommendations to the Plenary within two weeks.

The committee is headed by Margibi County Representatives Ivar Jones and Ellen Attoh Wreh. Other members include Attorney Michael Thomas and Representative Marie Johnson, among others.

Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn

The investigation will place the ministry's procurement and expenditure records under legislative scrutiny, with lawmakers expected to examine contract prices, supplier invoices, payment vouchers, delivery receipts, inventory registers, livestock specifications, and beneficiary-distribution records.

Speaking to reporters at the Capitol Building on Thursday, Rep. Kwague said he possessed documentary evidence that, in his view, raised serious questions about the prices paid for agricultural commodities reportedly purchased between May and June 2026.

The lawmaker cited transactions involving nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium (NPK) fertilizer, urea fertilizer, agricultural herbicides, seed rice, and cattle. He alleged that some commodities were purchased at inflated prices and questioned whether the ministry could adequately account for the goods and animals reportedly acquired.

According to the figures cited by Kwague, the ministry purchased 317 bags of NPK fertilizer at US$760 per bag, amounting to a reported expenditure of US$240,920.

He further alleged that 280 bags of urea fertilizer were purchased at US$700 per bag, totaling US$196,000.

Together, the two fertilizer transactions amount to US$436,920.

NPK fertilizer supplies nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, essential nutrients for crop growth, while urea is a concentrated nitrogen fertilizer commonly used to support vegetative development. The prices, quantities, quality, and distribution of these products are important factors in determining whether public expenditure on agricultural support delivers value for money.

Kwague questioned the reported unit prices and alleged that adequate documentation was unavailable to demonstrate that the fertilizers had reached their intended beneficiaries.

The specialized committee is expected to determine whether the prices were consistent with the procurement contracts and relevant market benchmarks, whether the contracted quantities were delivered, and whether the ministry's inventory and distribution records account for the supplies.

The lawmaker also cited the reported purchase of 10,500 parcels of agricultural herbicides at US$14.50 each, representing a stated expenditure of US$152,250.

He questioned whether the products had been distributed to farmers or used in the agricultural-support programs for which they were reportedly procured.

Herbicides are used to control weeds that compete with crops for nutrients, water, sunlight, and growing space. Their procurement and distribution are therefore relevant to efforts to improve farm productivity and reduce crop losses.

The committee is expected to examine whether the herbicides were delivered in the contracted quantities, met the required product specifications, and were properly stored and distributed. It may also review supplier documentation, warehouse records, and evidence confirming receipt by beneficiaries.

The investigation also covers a reported expenditure of US$210,828.90 for seed rice intended for Suakoko, Bong County.

Kwague alleged that the seed rice had not been distributed to its intended beneficiaries, raising questions about whether farmers received the agricultural inputs necessary to support production.

Seed rice is an important component of programs aimed at increasing domestic rice production. Its effectiveness depends on factors including seed quality, germination, varietal suitability, storage, and timely delivery to farmers.

The committee is expected to establish the quantity and variety of seed rice purchased, whether the consignment was delivered and properly stored, and whether distribution records confirm that farmers in Suakoko received the seeds.

If substantiated, the allegation could raise concerns about the implementation of the agricultural-support program and the accountability of public funds allocated to improve rice production.

The reported acquisition of cattle is another major component of the inquiry.

Kwague alleged that the ministry undertook a cattle procurement exercise involving US$200,000 for the acquisition of 100 cows, but claimed that only 47 animals were seen. He also questioned whether the cattle supplied met the intended age requirements, alleging that older animals were acquired instead of younger cattle.

However, the figures cited by the lawmaker contain a discrepancy that the investigation will need to resolve. Although he referenced a total expenditure of US$200,000 for 100 cows, he also cited a unit price of US$1,000 per animal. At that unit price, 100 cows would cost US$100,000 rather than US$200,000.

The committee will therefore need to establish the actual contract value, agreed unit price, number of cattle contracted for, quantity delivered, and amount paid.

It will also need to determine whether the animals met the ministry's procurement specifications and whether veterinary inspections and delivery records support the allegations.

The claim that 47 cattle were seen does not, by itself, establish how many animals were ultimately delivered or whether any were missing. Similarly, the allegation regarding their age must be assessed against the contract requirements and relevant livestock records.

Documents that may assist the inquiry include procurement contracts, animal-identification records, veterinary health certificates, inspection reports, payment vouchers, delivery receipts, and records showing where the animals were placed or distributed.

Based on the figures cited by Kwague, the fertilizer purchases total US$436,920, while the herbicides account for US$152,250 and seed rice US$210,828.90. Combined, these three categories amount to US$799,998.90.

The cattle procurement was separately reported at US$200,000. Adding that reported figure brings the total to US$999,998.90--approximately US$1 million.

However, the overall figure is based on the amounts cited by the lawmaker and should not be treated as a verified final expenditure until the ministry's official contracts, invoices, and payment records have been examined. The discrepancy in the cattle procurement figures also requires reconciliation.

The committee is expected to review the procurement process from contract award through payment, delivery, inventory management, and distribution. Its work may also examine supplier selection, price comparisons, quality assurance, goods-received documentation, and the procedures used to verify that beneficiaries received the purchased items.

Agricultural procurement has implications for food security, domestic rice production, crop yields, livestock development, and rural livelihoods. Fertilizers, quality seeds, crop-protection products, and livestock are intended to support farmers and strengthen agricultural output. Questions about their prices and delivery therefore extend beyond financial administration to the effectiveness of government agricultural programs.

The House investigation does not establish that corruption or financial wrongdoing occurred. The allegations must be tested against contracts, payment records, delivery evidence, and other verifiable documentation, while the ministry and relevant suppliers should have the opportunity to respond through the appropriate process.

The specialized committee has two weeks to submit its findings and recommendations to the Plenary. Its conclusions will help lawmakers determine whether the reported transactions complied with applicable procurement and financial-management requirements and what further legislative or administrative action, if any, may be warranted.