The Nigerian Senate Committee on Public Accounts has summoned the heads of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, and the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative over major discrepancies in official petrol import records. The decision, reported on Wednesday, October 21, followed a parliamentary examination of petroleum import figures covering 2022 and 2023, during which lawmakers rejected explanations offered by the downstream regulator and demanded a joint reconciliation of the conflicting data.
The controversy emerged during the committee’s consideration of queries contained in NEITI’s Oil and Gas Industry Audit Report covering 2021 to 2023. According to figures presented by the NMDPRA, Nigeria imported 3.29 billion litres of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), commonly called petrol, in 2022 and 6.02 billion litres in 2023. However, records attributed to NNPCL indicated 6.27 billion litres in 2022 and 3.88 billion litres in 2023, exposing substantial inconsistencies between two government institutions responsible for important aspects of the country’s petroleum supply chain.
A comparison of the figures shows that NNPCL’s reported imports for 2022 exceeded those presented by NMDPRA by approximately 2.98 billion litres, while the regulator’s 2023 figure exceeded NNPCL’s by about 2.14 billion litres. Across the two years, the agencies’ combined totals differed by approximately 840 million litres, although the much larger annual variations remain central to the investigation. The discrepancies do not, by themselves, establish fraud or financial losses, but they have raised questions about how imports were measured, classified, documented and reconciled between the institutions.
Representing NMDPRA Chief Executive Rabiu Abdullahi Umar at the hearing, agency official Uzoamaka Ugwu-Ojobe defended the regulator’s records and maintained that its figures were credible. She acknowledged differences between the datasets and indicated that efforts were being made to reconcile them. The explanation failed to satisfy lawmakers, who challenged the characterisation of the gaps as minor and questioned how institutions involved in monitoring petroleum imports could produce figures that varied by billions of litres without an adequate explanation.
A petroleum tanker at a Nigerian terminal, illustrating the fuel import operations under legislative scrutiny.
Senator Abdul Ningi, representing Bauchi Central, argued that the discrepancies were too substantial to be treated as routine differences in recordkeeping. He called for a more rigorous examination of the figures contained in the NEITI audit and stressed the importance of establishing their accuracy. Senator Dayo Faduyile of Ondo South also questioned the reliability of the submissions, warning that unresolved inconsistencies could undermine confidence in the official information used to assess petroleum imports and government oversight of the sector.
Senator Anietan Bassey, representing Akwa Ibom North-East, supported a comprehensive investigation and urged the committee to determine whether the conflicting figures reflected administrative weaknesses or possible wrongdoing. His intervention highlighted concerns about the potential implications for public accountability, particularly because petroleum imports have historically influenced government expenditure, fuel availability and economic policy. Nevertheless, no finding of fraud was announced at the hearing, and the companies and agencies involved are expected to have an opportunity to explain the differences in their respective records.
The dispute comes five years after the enactment of the Petroleum Industry Act on August 16, 2021, a landmark reform intended to strengthen governance, commercial efficiency and transparency in Nigeria’s oil and gas industry. The legislation established a new regulatory structure, including the NMDPRA, while providing for the transformation of the former Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation into a commercially oriented limited liability company. The current controversy therefore presents an important test of whether the institutional reforms have delivered the transparency and coordination envisaged under the law.
Beyond questions of recordkeeping, the discrepancies could have wider implications for petroleum supply planning, regulatory reporting and the reliability of economic statistics. Accurate import figures are important for assessing domestic petrol availability, monitoring market demand and evaluating government decisions affecting the downstream sector. Differences in reporting periods, cargo documentation, import classifications or accounting methods could potentially explain some inconsistencies. However, these possibilities remain unconfirmed, and investigators will need supporting documents before determining whether the discrepancies reflect technical reporting problems or more serious irregularities.
NEITI headquarters in Abuja. The transparency agency’s audit findings prompted the latest legislative scrutiny.
Following the hearing, the Senate committee resolved to bring the leadership of NMDPRA, NNPCL and NEITI together to examine the conflicting records and establish the basis for an acceptable reconciliation. The proposed engagement is expected to focus on the accuracy of reported import volumes and the evidence supporting the figures submitted by the agencies. While lawmakers have expressed serious concerns, the investigation remains at the explanation-seeking stage, and no final determination has been announced regarding responsibility for the discrepancies or any associated financial consequences.
As of October 22, 2026, the committee’s decision to summon the three organisations remains the latest confirmed development, with no publicly verified outcome from the proposed joint meeting. The central issue is whether the institutions can produce consistent, independently verifiable records of the petrol imported into Nigeria during the years under review. The eventual findings could influence parliamentary oversight, petroleum sector reporting standards and public confidence in official energy statistics, making the reconciliation exercise an important measure of accountability within the industry.
