Cover StoryEconomyNewsOil and Gas

₦210trn Discrepancy: CNPP, Civil Society Coalition Demand Independent Probe of Mele Kyari-Era of NNPCL

4 Mins read

The Conference of Nigeria Political Parties (CNPP) and more than 75 civil society organisations operating under the Coalition of National Civil Society Organisations (CNCSOs) have raised fresh concerns over the ability of Nigeria’s legislature to ensure accountability in corruption investigations, warning that decades of parliamentary probes have rarely produced prosecutions or jail terms for culpable public officials.

The political parties’ umbrella body and its civil society allies made the assertion in a joint press statement signed by CNPP’s Deputy National Publicity Secretary, James Ezema, and the National Secretary of the CNCSOs, Ali Abacha, in reaction to the ongoing Senate investigation into alleged ₦210 trillion accounting discrepancies in the books of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) during the tenure of its former Group Chief Executive Officer, Mele Kyari.

In the strongly worded statement, the groups expressed skepticism about the outcome of the Senate probe, arguing that similar investigations conducted by the National Assembly of Nigeria since the country’s return to democratic rule in 1999 have largely ended without meaningful consequences.

According to the groups, legislative investigations into corruption across various sectors of the Nigerian economy—especially the petroleum industry—have historically generated significant public attention but seldom translated into criminal prosecution or conviction.

They stated that the recurring pattern has become familiar to Nigerians: once a scandal breaks, the legislature convenes hearings, officials are summoned, public outrage follows, and investigative reports are promised. However, the matter often fades away without concrete action against those responsible.

The organisations noted that the latest probe by the Senate into the financial records of the national oil company has again brought the issue of accountability in Nigeria’s petroleum sector to the forefront of national discourse.

The Senate is currently investigating allegations of about ₦210 trillion in accounting discrepancies linked to the operations of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, particularly during the leadership of Mele Kyari, who previously served as Group Managing Director of the defunct Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) before the organisation was restructured and transformed into a limited liability company.

While the CNPP and the coalition of civil society groups welcomed the decision by the Senate to summon former officials of the company to explain the controversial figures, they warned that the probe must not follow what they described as a familiar trajectory of inconclusive investigations.

“For more than two decades, Nigerians have witnessed countless legislative probes that ended without prosecution, conviction, or imprisonment of those responsible for corruption uncovered during the hearings,” the statement said.

The groups recalled that they had repeatedly raised alarm over the financial management of the national oil company during the tenure of the former management led by Mele Kyari, alleging opaque accounting practices and questionable financial disclosures relating to subsidy payments, crude oil transactions and operational expenditures.

They also revisited long-standing concerns about the controversial rehabilitation of Nigeria’s state-owned refineries, particularly the Port Harcourt Refinery, which they said had consumed billions of dollars in public funds without delivering sustainable refining capacity.

According to the groups, repeated announcements by officials of the national oil company suggesting that the refineries had been successfully rehabilitated ultimately turned out to be misleading when the facilities failed to function as expected.

They claimed that trillions of naira and substantial foreign-currency expenditures were reportedly committed to refinery rehabilitation projects across the country, yet the anticipated results never materialised.

The statement noted that the eventual shutdown of operations at the Port Harcourt Refinery by the new management of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited raised serious questions about the effectiveness of the earlier rehabilitation efforts.

Despite the magnitude of the alleged financial irregularities, the groups lamented that no public official had been successfully prosecuted or jailed in connection with the projects.

Beyond the refinery controversy, the organisations also expressed concern about what they described as a disparity in the enforcement of anti-corruption laws in Nigeria.

They accused the country’s major anti-graft agencies—the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC)—of showing greater urgency in cases involving political opponents than in investigations involving high-ranking public officials accused of large-scale economic sabotage.

According to the groups, some members of the immediate past management of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, including Mele Kyari, were reportedly invited and briefly detained by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission following their removal from office.

However, they claimed that the detention lasted only a short period and that the Nigerian public has not been informed of any major findings from the investigation since then.

The groups contrasted this situation with what they described as the aggressive prosecution of some political figures outside the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), many of whom have faced prolonged detention or repeated arrests even after courts granted them bail.

They warned that such disparity creates the perception that anti-corruption enforcement in Nigeria may be selective and politically motivated.

In light of these concerns, the CNPP and the coalition of civil society organisations called for decisive presidential intervention to address the controversy surrounding the finances of the national oil company.

They urged Bola Ahmed Tinubu, President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, to issue an executive order establishing an independent judicial commission of inquiry into the financial dealings of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited.

According to the groups, the proposed investigation should cover the period from 2015 to date, particularly in view of the fact that the administration of the late Muhammadu Buhari had previously overseen the judicial seizure of assets and recovery of stolen funds from past officials of the national oil company before 2015.

They also demanded a comprehensive forensic audit of the finances, contracts, crude oil transactions and subsidy claims of the company within the same period.

The groups said the probe should further investigate all funds allocated to the rehabilitation of Nigeria’s refineries, including the Port Harcourt Refinery and other federal facilities.

In addition, they insisted that the activities and decisions of the management of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited under the leadership of Mele Kyari must be thoroughly examined.

They further called for the public presentation of the findings of the forensic audit and judicial inquiry, followed by the immediate prosecution of any officials found culpable.

According to the statement, Nigeria cannot afford a situation in which allegations involving trillions of naira generate public outrage but ultimately produce no consequences.

The organisations stressed that if the administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu is genuinely committed to fighting corruption, the most powerful actors in the country’s most strategic economic institution must be subjected to the same level of scrutiny applied to ordinary citizens and political opponents.

They concluded that only a transparent, impartial and credible investigation can restore public confidence in the management of Nigeria’s petroleum resources.

Until such an independent judicial inquiry and comprehensive forensic audit are carried out, the groups warned that legislative hearings alone would remain insufficient to resolve the deep-rooted concerns surrounding the operations of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited.

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com