By Isqil Najim
His Royalty Engr. Otis Anyaeji faulted the Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria, COREN over its reported partnership with a non-engineering forensic audit association to train and certify engineering failure analysts.
In a strongly worded memorandum addressed to the Presidents of COREN, the Nigerian Society of Engineers (NSE), and various Professional Engineering Institutions (PEIs), Engr. Anyaeji contended that engineering failure analysis is fundamentally a discipline-specific professional practice rather than a regulatory affair.
Engr. Anyaeji, a former Vice President of COREN and past President of the NSE, expressed deep concerns over the regulator’s recent direction, reminding the leadership of warnings he first sounded during the 2024 Engineering Assembly.
“One just learnt that COREN in association with a non-engineering forensic audit association is conducting training and examination to certify candidates for designation as engineering failure analysts, or something of the sort,” Anyaeji stated.
Reiterating his long-held stance, he emphasized that individual practitioners and registered engineering firms hold the sole legal license to practice engineering. Neither professional professional organizations (PEOs), professional engineering institutions (PEIs), trade associations, nor regulatory bodies themselves are licensed to practice engineering. “The regulatory bodies need to emphasize this,” he added.
‘Failure Analysis is Not Generic’
The veteran engineer maintained that failure analysis cannot be handled by a centralized regulator because the field requires deep, specialized scientific and technical knowledge tailored to specific engineering disciplines.
According to him, a single regulatory institution cannot possess the technical depth required to competently investigate diverse failures across the entire engineering spectrum. He outlined the discipline-specific requirements as follows:
Structural failures demand core expertise in structural engineering, geotechnics, concrete technology, and construction practices.
Electrical failures require profound competence in power systems, protection systems, insulation technology, and electrical safety.
Mechanical failures call for deep knowledge of materials engineering, fatigue, fracture mechanics, tribology, and machine design.
Petroleum and gas failures necessitate expertise in reservoir engineering, drilling systems, corrosion science, process engineering, and pipeline integrity.
Chemical process failures rely heavily on specialist knowledge of reaction engineering, process safety, instrumentation, and hazard analysis.
He asserted that professional institutions—such as the Chartered Institute of Power Engineers of Nigeria, the Nigerian Institution of Structural Engineers, and the Nigerian Society of Chemical Engineers—are the true repositories of this technical authority and are best suited to lead such investigations.
Conflict of Interest and Dilution of Standards
Anyaeji further warned of institutional overreach, noting that a regulator’s core statutory function is analogous to that of a referee—registering practitioners, regulating conduct, enforcing ethics, and accrediting educational programmes.
“When a regulator becomes investigator, trainer, certifier, and adjudicator simultaneously, concerns may arise regarding conflict of interest, concentration of authority, absence of independent review, and reduced transparency,” the statement read.
He raised questions regarding the professional legitimacy of partnering with a forensic audit body, clarifying that forensic auditing deals with financial investigations, fraud detection, and compliance. Conversely, forensic engineering strictly evaluates physical evidence, design verification, and failure mechanics.
“While forensic auditors may contribute to investigations involving procurement irregularities or contractual disputes, they do not ordinarily possess the technical expertise required to determine why a bridge collapsed, a pipeline ruptured, a pressure vessel exploded, or an electrical system failed,” Anyaeji argued, warning that such a partnership risks diluting the technical rigour of the engineering profession.
A Call for a Balanced Framework
To resolve the friction and safeguard public safety, Engr. Anyaeji proposed a collaborative, multidisciplinary framework that respects the boundaries of regulation and practice:
The Regulatory Body (COREN): Should restrict itself to establishing high-level policy, accreditation criteria, and general oversight.
Professional Engineering Institutions (PEIs): Should develop the discipline-specific curricula for failure analysis.
Forensic Engineering Organizations: Should provide specialized investigative tools and methodologies.
Universities and Research Laboratories: Should drive testing, certification, and continuous professional education.
Certification Panels: Must be multidisciplinary but strictly led by subject-matter experts nominated by their respective professional institutions.
Anyaeji concluded that this model is the only technically defensible path to aligning competence with accountability, thereby preserving public confidence in future forensic engineering outcomes across the country.
Memorandum: Engineering Failure Analysis Certification by Royalty Engr. Otis Anyaeji KSG FAEng