Nigeria’s petroleum sector cannot command public confidence when two of its most important institutions provide substantially different accounts of the volume of petrol imported into the country. The Senate Committee on Public Accounts has now rejected the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority’s explanation for discrepancies in import records for 2022 and 2023, summoning the leadership of the regulator, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative to account for the differences. This is a necessary intervention, and the investigation must proceed beyond the exchange of explanations to establish what the records actually show.
The figures in question are substantial. NMDPRA reported 3.29 billion litres of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) imports in 2022 and 6.02 billion litres in 2023. NNPCL’s records, however, put the respective volumes at 6.27 billion litres and 3.88 billion litres. The difference between the agencies’ figures is 2.98 billion litres for 2022 and 2.14 billion litres for 2023. These are significant variations in the records of a commodity whose supply, pricing and importation have considerable implications for the Nigerian economy. When agencies with responsibilities in the same sector cannot reconcile figures of this magnitude, the public deserves a detailed explanation.
We are particularly concerned by the reported characterisation of the differences as slight. Perhaps there are technical or accounting explanations that will emerge from the investigation. The agencies may have applied different reporting periods, classifications or methods of recording transactions. Such possibilities must be examined fairly. However, the size of the variations makes it difficult to accept a general assurance that the figures are being reconciled as a sufficient response. The agencies must identify the precise source of the differences, provide documentary evidence and establish which figures should be used for official reporting.
The controversy emerged from queries raised in NEITI’s Oil and Gas Industry Audit Report covering 2021 to 2023. This makes the matter particularly important because independent industry audits are intended to expose inconsistencies, improve disclosure and strengthen accountability in the management of Nigeria’s extractive resources. The audit process has performed a useful public service by bringing the discrepancies to attention. The next responsibility falls on the institutions concerned to resolve them transparently and on the appropriate oversight bodies to ensure that the findings lead to corrective action.
We must also be careful about what the available evidence establishes. Conflicting records do not, on their own, prove fraud, diversion or deliberate manipulation. It would be premature to reach such conclusions before the underlying transactions and reporting methods have been examined. Nevertheless, the absence of conclusive evidence of wrongdoing does not diminish the seriousness of the discrepancies. Accurate records are a basic requirement of public administration, particularly in a sector where errors can affect fiscal calculations, commercial decisions and assessments of national supply.
The wider context makes this investigation even more urgent. Nigeria removed the longstanding petrol subsidy in May 2023, a decision that fundamentally altered the relationship between government, petroleum suppliers and consumers. Successive governments have defended subsidy removal on the grounds that it would reduce fiscal pressure, curb opportunities for abuse and allow public resources to be directed towards development. Nigerians have since borne substantial increases in the cost of transportation, food distribution and other essential goods. Although petrol prices are influenced by several factors, including crude oil prices, exchange rates, refining costs and distribution margins, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether the market is operating under transparent and verifiable rules.
Deregulation does not eliminate the need for regulation. It changes the nature of the regulator’s responsibilities. In a market where prices are increasingly determined by commercial conditions, the authorities must still monitor compliance, promote competition, enforce standards and publish reliable information. Without credible data, neither government nor consumers can properly assess market performance. Investors also need dependable information to make decisions about refining, imports, storage and distribution.
This is particularly relevant as Nigeria’s domestic refining capacity expands and the place of imported petrol in the market continues to attract legal and commercial disputes. Importers argue that access to multiple sources of supply supports competition and protects availability, while proponents of domestic refining point to the potential benefits of local production for foreign-exchange demand, supply security and industrial development. These arguments cannot be settled by commercial claims alone. The country needs accurate information about actual import volumes, domestic output, consumption, inventories and the movement of products through the distribution chain.
The government must therefore ensure that the present inquiry produces more than an agreement between agencies on which set of figures to publish. The joint session should examine the underlying records, including import documentation, cargo discharge reports, customs and shipping data, relevant transaction records and the methods used to compile the figures. Where the agencies’ reporting periods or definitions differ, those differences should be documented and reconciled. Where errors are identified, the responsible institutions should correct their records and explain how the mistakes occurred. If evidence of misconduct emerges, the appropriate authorities must investigate and apply the law.
We also expect NEITI to make the relevant audit findings and subsequent clarifications accessible to the public. Its role in the process is particularly important because transparency requires independent verification, rather than a settlement based solely on the competing explanations of the institutions whose figures are under question. Future audits should establish clear procedures for reconciling physical volumes and financial records, with defined responsibilities and deadlines for resolving discrepancies. The public should be able to trace the conclusions to verifiable evidence.
The National Assembly must sustain its oversight beyond the initial summons. Public hearings have limited value if agencies can offer explanations without being required to substantiate them or implement agreed recommendations. The committee should publish its findings, identify any outstanding questions and monitor the corrective measures adopted by the institutions involved. Nigerians should not have to wait for another audit cycle to discover whether the discrepancies have been resolved.
There is also a broader lesson for public-sector data management. Government institutions cannot operate as separate repositories of incompatible figures where their responsibilities overlap. Common reporting standards, interoperable information systems, independent audits and regular reconciliation should be routine features of petroleum-sector administration. Such measures would help prevent disputes from persisting for years and reduce the scope for errors to distort public debate.
We recognise that the task of regulating a complex petroleum market is demanding, particularly during a period of structural change. The authorities must balance supply security, competition, investment and consumer interests while responding to changing market conditions. These challenges make institutional coordination more important, not less. A sector of such economic significance cannot afford persistent uncertainty over basic information about the volumes of products imported into the country.
The Senate has taken an appropriate step by refusing to treat the differences as a minor administrative matter. Its responsibility now is to insist on evidence, allow the agencies a fair opportunity to explain their records and ensure that the conclusions are made public. The regulator and NNPCL, for their part, must recognise that confidence in their work depends on the accuracy and consistency of the information they release.
For Nigerians who continue to pay heavily for petrol and the goods and services affected by its price, reliable records are part of the accountability they are entitled to expect. The immediate task is to establish the correct figures for 2022 and 2023, explain the discrepancies and determine whether they have any financial or regulatory consequences. The longer-term task is to ensure that such inconsistencies are detected and resolved before they become recurring features of public audits.
Petroleum reform cannot be judged by deregulation alone. It must also be judged by the quality of the institutions that oversee the market, the reliability of their records and their willingness to answer legitimate questions. Until the conflicting import figures are fully reconciled and the findings disclosed, important questions about the management of Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector will remain unanswered.
