Firm Demands ₦650m From Taraba Over Cocoa Seedlings
The Taraba State Government is facing a ₦650 million payment demand from Integrated Bayco Agro Services Ltd over the production and supply of 300,000 cocoa seedlings reportedly provided under the Governor Agbu Kefas Agricultural Revolution Initiative.
The company, through its legal representatives, issued the state government a 14-day ultimatum to settle the alleged outstanding debt, warning that failure to resolve the matter could result in legal action.
The dispute has raised questions over the financing and contractual arrangements surrounding the state’s cocoa development programme, particularly because the amount being demanded appears substantially higher than the value obtained when the reported number of seedlings is multiplied by the stated contract rate.
Integrated Bayco Agro Services Ltd maintains that it financed the production of the seedlings through high-interest financial facilities and that the prolonged delay in receiving payment has placed considerable pressure on its operations.
At the time of the source report, however, the Taraba State Government had not issued an official response explaining the basis of the ₦650 million claim or the contractual arrangements involved.
300,000 Cocoa Seedlings at Centre of Dispute
The dispute revolves around 300,000 cocoa seedlings said to have been produced and supplied for distribution to farmers as part of Taraba State’s cocoa development programme.
According to the company’s claim, the seedlings were supplied and distributed during the official launch of the cocoa initiative on August 13, 2025, at Ndaforo in Kurmi Local Government Area.
The initiative formed part of the agricultural programme associated with Governor Agbu Kefas’ administration.
Integrated Bayco Agro Services Ltd claims it played a role in producing and supplying the seedlings for the programme but has not received the payment it says is due for the work.
The company’s lawyers have now demanded immediate settlement of the alleged debt.
The 14-day deadline significantly raises the stakes because the company has threatened to approach the courts if the matter is not resolved within the stipulated period.
If legal proceedings commence, the contractual documents governing the transaction could become crucial in determining what the state government is actually obligated to pay.
Questions Emerge Over ₦650m Figure
One of the most important aspects of the dispute is the apparent difference between the reported unit cost of the seedlings and the total amount now being demanded.
The contract rate cited in the claim is ₦550 per seedling.
At that rate, 300,000 seedlings would have a basic value of approximately ₦165 million.
That leaves a difference of about ₦485 million between the simple multiplication of the reported unit rate and the company’s ₦650 million demand.
The disparity does not by itself establish that the company’s demand is incorrect.
There could be additional contractual components that are not fully explained in the available report, including financing costs, interest, variations or other obligations associated with the transaction.
However, until the contract or a detailed breakdown of the ₦650 million claim is made available, the basis of the difference remains unclear.
This makes transparency important for both parties.
Integrated Bayco could provide a detailed breakdown showing how the alleged liability increased from the apparent basic supply value to ₦650 million, while the state government could clarify its understanding of the contractual obligation.
Without such information, members of the public are left with a substantial financial claim but limited details explaining its composition.
Company Says It Borrowed to Finance Project
Integrated Bayco Agro Services Ltd says it financed the production of the cocoa seedlings using high-interest financial facilities.
According to the company, the delay in payment has consequently created significant financial pressure on its business.
This part of the claim could become important if financing charges form part of the amount being demanded.
Borrowing money to execute a government contract can expose a company to additional costs when payment is delayed.
Interest can continue to accumulate depending on the financing arrangement, potentially increasing the contractor’s financial burden.
However, whether such financing costs can legally be transferred to the Taraba State Government would depend on the terms of the contract and any other applicable agreements between the parties.
That is why the contractual documentation is essential.
A court, if eventually asked to determine the dispute, would likely have to examine the relevant agreements and evidence rather than rely solely on public statements from either side.
Cocoa Programme Faces Fresh Scrutiny
The controversy could bring greater attention to the implementation of Taraba State’s agricultural initiatives.
Cocoa development can provide important economic opportunities when properly managed.
Expanding production can create income for farmers, support agro-processing and potentially strengthen agricultural value chains.
However, government-backed agricultural programmes also require transparent procurement and financial management.
Where private companies supply seedlings, equipment or other agricultural inputs, contracts should clearly establish quantities, prices, payment schedules and responsibilities.
This protects both government and contractors.
For government, proper documentation helps ensure that public funds are spent according to approved terms.
For contractors, clearly defined agreements provide a basis for enforcing legitimate payment obligations.
The current dispute demonstrates what can happen when there is public uncertainty over the financial arrangements behind a government programme.
Government Response Needed
At the time the matter was reported, no official response from the Taraba State Government was available explaining the basis of the company’s ₦650 million demand or providing the government’s account of the contract.
This means the ₦650 million figure should be treated as a claim made by the company rather than an established debt already accepted by the state.
That distinction is important.
A demand letter does not by itself prove that the amount claimed is legally owed.
Similarly, the absence of an immediate government response does not establish that the company’s allegations are false.
Both positions require evidence.
A detailed response from the state government could clarify whether it acknowledges the contract, whether the 300,000 seedlings were received as claimed, what amount was originally agreed and whether any payments have already been made.
The government could also explain whether there are disputes over performance, documentation, pricing or other contractual conditions.
Until such clarification emerges, conclusions about responsibility would be premature.
14-Day Ultimatum Raises Prospect of Court Action
The company’s decision to issue a 14-day ultimatum introduces the possibility that the disagreement could move from correspondence into formal litigation.
Integrated Bayco has reportedly warned that it will commence legal proceedings to recover the alleged outstanding amount if the government fails to settle within the deadline.
Should that happen, several issues could come under scrutiny.
These may include the existence and terms of the contract, evidence of delivery, the agreed price of the seedlings, any variations, payment obligations and the calculation behind the ₦650 million demand.
A legal process could also provide greater clarity about whether additional financing charges or other costs form part of the alleged liability.
However, the parties could still resolve the matter without litigation if they reach an agreement during the ultimatum period.
Public Funds Require Transparency
Because the dispute involves a state government and a claim worth hundreds of millions of naira, the matter carries significant public-interest implications.
Taxpayers have a legitimate interest in understanding how government contracts are awarded, how much goods and services cost and why payments may become subjects of disputes.
The reported figures make that transparency particularly important.
If 300,000 seedlings were contracted at ₦550 each, the apparent base figure is ₦165 million.
If the government’s total obligation is indeed ₦650 million, explaining the additional components would help resolve questions surrounding the transaction.
If, on the other hand, the government disputes the amount, it should explain the basis of that disagreement.
Public disclosure of the relevant facts could prevent speculation and allow the matter to be assessed on evidence.
Agricultural Ambitions and Accountability
The controversy also highlights a broader challenge facing governments pursuing ambitious agricultural programmes.
Increasing agricultural production requires partnerships with farmers, suppliers, financial institutions and private companies.
For those partnerships to remain sustainable, procurement and payment systems need to be predictable.
Contractors need confidence that legitimate obligations will be honoured, while government must ensure that public money is paid only for properly authorised and verified transactions.
Both objectives depend heavily on documentation and accountability.
The cocoa seedlings dispute therefore goes beyond a disagreement between a company and the Taraba State Government.
It raises questions about how agricultural projects are financed, how contractors are paid and how citizens can verify the cost of government programmes.
For now, Integrated Bayco Agro Services Ltd has presented a ₦650 million claim and threatened legal action if payment is not made within 14 days.
The state government’s detailed position remains crucial to establishing the full picture.
Until the contractual terms and the calculation behind the demand are clarified, the ₦650 million remains a contested claim rather than a conclusively established liability.
What is clear is that greater transparency from all parties would help Taraba residents understand how a supply involving 300,000 cocoa seedlings developed into a dispute potentially worth ₦650 million.
