By ADETUNJI ROGERS The latest scrutiny of N7.13 trillion recorded by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd) as an energy-security expense in 2024 has reignited familiar questions about the national oil company’s financial accountability. According to NNPC Ltd’s 2024 audited financial statements, the expenditure arose from a mechanism linked to the difference between the exchange rate used to freeze the ex coastal price of Premium Motor Spirit and the prevailing exchange rate when imports were settled. The company said the amount was receivable from the Federation and charged against amounts due to it under the Petroleum Industry Act.
The broader “energy security cost” category also included expenditure relating to the protection of oil and gas assets. The controversy, therefore, is not necessarily that NNPC spent money on energy security. Nor does the figure, standing alone, establish that funds were stolen or misappropriated.
The more important question is whether the public can understand what the N7.13 trillion represents, how it was calculated, what specific expenditures it contains, who authorised them and what value was delivered in return. That is where transparency becomes non negotiable. The issue has acquired greater significance amid wider scrutiny of NNPC’s finances, including the separate controversy over more than N210 trillion in receivables and payables described as unreconciled in audit related scrutiny.
The two matters are separate and should not be conflated. But both underline the same institutional principle: the larger the figures, the more detailed the explanation required. The N7.13 trillion energy security expense is therefore better understood as a corporate governance and public accountability question, rather than automatically as a corruption case.
Energy security can encompass ensuring the availability, accessibility and affordability of energy, protecting infrastructure and strengthening supply chains. The central questions are whether the expenditure was properly classified, transparently disclosed, economically justified and capable of demonstrating measurable value. For an institution managing some of the country’s most strategically important commercial assets, those questions should be answerable without ambiguity.
The same principle provides a useful lens through which to examine historical allegation…
Summary from source