The Questions Behind Allegations Involving NNPC – By Adetunji Rogers

By Adetunji Rogers

The latest public controversy surrounding an alleged N210 trillion financial discrepancy involving the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd) has once again raised broader questions about accountability, financial controls and the management of Nigeria’s most important commercial institution. But the renewed debate also offers an opportunity to revisit a recurring problem in public discourse: the tendency to reduce complex institutional allegations to a handful of prominent personalities, while paying insufficient attention to the systems, records and decision-making structures through which the alleged transactions would have occurred. That issue is particularly relevant whenever historical allegations involving the former Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation are revived, including references to an alleged $153.31 million transaction dating back to the period when NNPC operated as a statutory corporation. The question should not simply be who held the most senior political office at the time. It should be: how did the money allegedly move through the institution? By 2015, former Minister of Petroleum Resources Diezani Alison-Madueke served as Chairperson of the NNPC Board in her ministerial capacity. Dr Joseph Thlama Dawha was Group Managing Director, having succeeded Andrew Yakubu in August 2014. Bernard O.N. Otti served as Group Executive Director, Finance and Accounts. Other senior professionals included Dr Dan Iwone Efebo, Group Executive Director, Corporate Services, and Ikechukwu Oguine, Coordinator of Legal Services and Secretary to the corporation.
The corporation also operated through multiple layers of finance, treasury, legal, procurement, audit and executive management. It was therefore not a one-person operation in which a major financial transaction could simply be initiated, approved, executed and concealed by a single office holder without institutional involvement. This raises a fundamental question about the historical allegation. If the funds originated from NNPC, why has the public record not clearly identified the originating NNPC account, the internal authorisation trail, every NNPC official involved in the transaction, and the institutional control failures that allegedly permitted the movement of the $153.31 million? This is not an argument that wrongdoing could not have occurred. Nor is it an argument that senior public officials should be shielded from investigation. It is a question about the evidentiary chain necessary to establish responsibility. A credible account of a transaction of that magnitude should explain where the funds originated, who initiated the transaction, which officials authorised it, which finance and treasury personnel processed it, whether legal or executive approval was required and what documentary records were created. It should also identify the point at which the institution’s internal controls allegedly failed.
The Finance and Accounts Directorate, headed at the executive level by Bernard O.N. Otti during the relevant period, had responsibility for significant aspects of the Corporation’s financial administration. Other parts of the organisation had responsibility for corporate services, legal affairs, procurement, audit and executive management. The existence of these structures does not establish that every official within them was involved in a particular transaction. Nor does it prove that a transaction could not have been improperly executed. But it does mean that serious allegations involving substantial sums should be examined against the institution’s actual decision-making and financial processes. Public discussion has often focused on senior political and corporate figures associated with the period. Yet identifying officials who held senior positions at the time is not the same as demonstrating their involvement in a specific transaction.
The crucial issue is the money trail. Which account was debited? Who gave the instruction? Who approved it? Who processed it? Who recorded it? Who received or controlled the funds? Were there internal objections? Were the transactions captured in financial records? Were auditors alerted? If established procedures were bypassed, who had the authority to bypass them and how was that possible? These questions are important not only in relation to historical allegations but also to contemporary claims involving NNPC Ltd. The scale of an allegation—including one involving N210 trillion—should not substitute for evidence. A disputed reconciliation, accounting discrepancy, revenue shortfall, financial loss and alleged diversion are different concepts and should not be presented as though they are automatically the same. Recent legal developments concerning Alison-Madueke also reinforce the need for precision. Allegations, investigations, charges and judicial outcomes are not interchangeable. Where subsequent legal proceedings have materially affected the public record, those developments deserve appropriate consideration in any responsible account of historical allegations.
For an institution as important as NNPC, this distinction is not merely academic. Allegations involving the national oil company affect public confidence, investor perceptions and the credibility of an institution central to Nigeria’s economy. NNPC also bears responsibility for ensuring that serious allegations involving its operations are addressed with sufficient clarity. Silence can allow speculation to harden into accepted fact. Where investigations have been conducted, allegations challenged or findings reached, communicating the relevant facts serves the public interest. Transparency should not be viewed as a defence of individuals. It is a defence of institutional accountability. None of this diminishes the obligation of public officials to answer legitimate questions about their conduct. Those who hold public office must be subject to scrutiny, and institutions managing public resources must remain open to investigation. But accountability is strongest when it is based on evidence rather than repetition.
The continuing public discussion surrounding Diezani Alison-Madueke, as well as newer allegations involving NNPC Ltd, therefore presents an opportunity to move beyond personality-driven narratives and examine the institutional facts. If serious allegations exist, the public deserves a clear account of the money trail, the originating accounts, the authorisation processes, the officials who handled the transactions and any control failures that allegedly permitted the movement of funds. Ultimately, the question is not whether individuals should be protected from scrutiny. They should not. The question is whether scrutiny itself should meet the same standard demanded of the people and institutions it seeks to hold accountable: evidence, precision and due process.

•Rogers writes in from Ibadan

“The corporation also operated through multiple layers of finance, treasury, legal, procurement, audit and executive management. It was therefore not a one-person operation in which a major financial transaction could simply be initiated, approved, executed and concealed by a single office holder without institutional involvement. This raises a fundamental question about the historical allegation. If the funds originated from NNPC, why has the public record not clearly identified the originating NNPC account, the internal authorisation trail, every NNPC official involved in the transaction.”