Understanding SIGA’s policy of encouraging inter-trading among Specified Entities (2)

The first part was published on April 21, 2026

There is also a strong developmental justification for inter-trading among specified entities.

Many state entities operate in sectors with strategic national importance, including energy, transport, finance, insurance, logistics, and infrastructure.

When capable public enterprises transact with one another, the effect may extend beyond narrow revenue gains.

It can strengthen domestic productive capacity, support employment, improve service integration, and reinforce the resilience of critical sectors.

This is particularly relevant where the State’s broader developmental goals depend on institutions that are financially viable and capable of acting in coordinated ways.

Seen in this light, SIGA’s policy is not simply about internal commerce; it is about using the State’s asset base intelligently to support national development, while improving returns on public investment.

Moreover, inter-trading can serve as a discipline-enhancing mechanism within the public sector itself.

If specified entities know that they must compete credibly for business from fellow state entities, they are incentivised to improve price competitiveness, service standards, reliability, and innovation. 

A properly governed inter-trading framework does not reward inefficiency; it challenges entities to become worthy commercial partners within the portfolio.

That dynamic can help drive organizational reform and performance improvement, which are core concerns of SIGA’s oversight function.

The strongest defence of SIGA’s position, therefore, lies in its character as a prudent and lawful exercise of active ownership.

The State is not a passive spectator in relation to its enterprises.

It is an owner with legitimate interests in efficiency, profitability, sustainability, and public value.

SIGA, as the institution mandated to safeguard those interests, is justified in encouraging relationships that strengthen the collective performance of the entities under its oversight. 

Such encouragement is especially legitimate where it remains non-arbitrary, respects procurement and governance laws, preserves board and management responsibility, and is directed toward measurable value creation.

In conclusion, SIGA’s policy of encouraging inter-trading among certain specified entities is both legitimate and strategically sound.

It reflects a rational ownership approach aimed at retaining value within the State’s enterprise portfolio, improving institutional cooperation, promoting efficiency, enhancing financial sustainability, and advancing the broader public interest. 

Properly implemented, the policy does not offend fairness, undermine competition, or violate compliance obligations.

Rather, it operates within the legal and governance framework as an instrument of coordinated value creation. 

For these reasons, SIGA’s position is not only defensible; it is a responsible and forward-looking expression of its duty to protect, preserve, and optimise the State’s ownership interests.