Senate Summons NMDPRA, NNPCL and NEITI Over Disputed Petrol Import Records

Nigeria’s Senate Committee on Public Accounts has rejected the explanation offered by the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) over conflicting records of petrol imports, resolving to summon the heads of the authority, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI).

The decision followed a review of queries raised in NEITI’s Oil and Gas Industry Audit Report covering 2021 to 2023. The committee wants the agencies to explain why their records show substantially different volumes of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), commonly known as petrol, imported into Nigeria in 2022 and 2023.

The discrepancies were discussed during a committee hearing in which an NMDPRA representative defended the authority’s figures but did not satisfy lawmakers.

The investigation is intended to establish the reasons for the differences and determine whether the records can be reconciled. The discrepancies themselves do not establish that fraud or other wrongdoing occurred.

Figures presented to the committee show a substantial difference between the records maintained by the two petroleum-sector organisations.

According to the NMDPRA, Nigeria imported 3.29 billion litres of petrol in 2022 and 6.02 billion litres in 2023.

NNPCL’s records, however, put the corresponding volumes at 6.27 billion litres in 2022 and 3.88 billion litres in 2023.

The differences are significant not only because of their size, but also because the two sets of records suggest opposite trends. The NMDPRA’s figures show imports increasing between 2022 and 2023, while NNPCL’s records indicate a decline.

The comparison raises an important question: why do two major organisations involved in Nigeria’s petroleum sector report such different figures for the same years?

The answer has not yet been established publicly through the committee’s announced investigation.

At the hearing, NMDPRA was represented by Deputy Director Uzoamaka Ugwu-Ojobe, who spoke on behalf of the authority’s chief executive, Rabiu Abdullahi Umar.

She maintained that the regulator’s figures were credible despite the differences with NNPCL’s records. She also said the discrepancies were being examined for possible reconciliation.

Her explanation did not convince the committee, with lawmakers arguing that the differences were too large to be treated as minor variations without a more detailed account.

Senator Abdul Ningi of Bauchi Central called for a thorough investigation. Other committee members also questioned the reliability of the conflicting records and the need to establish how the differences arose.

Committee chairman Ibrahim Dankwambo said the heads of NMDPRA, NNPCL and NEITI would be summoned to explain the figures and help reconcile the records.

The next stage of the process is expected to provide an opportunity for the agencies to compare their underlying data and explain how they arrived at their respective totals.

Petrol import data is important to understanding Nigeria’s downstream petroleum market. Reliable records help regulators, government institutions, industry participants and the public assess the volumes of fuel entering the country.

When official figures differ significantly, it becomes harder to establish a consistent picture of supply and market activity.

However, the difference between two reported figures should not automatically be interpreted as missing fuel, lost public revenue or evidence of a criminal act. Those conclusions would require additional evidence and an explanation of what each dataset measures.

The agencies may need to clarify the reporting periods, definitions, data sources and verification methods used to compile their figures. They must also explain whether the figures cover the same categories of imports and whether any adjustments, revisions or classification differences were applied.

A reconciliation based on supporting documents would help establish whether the differences resulted from reporting or methodology issues, errors in the records, or other matters requiring further investigation.

The Senate’s inquiry also raises broader questions about the quality of public-sector data and accountability in Nigeria’s petroleum industry.

Reliable petroleum records are important for economic planning, regulatory oversight and public scrutiny. Where figures cannot be reconciled, the relevant institutions should provide clear explanations and supporting evidence.

If the investigation establishes that errors occurred, the agencies may need to correct their records and improve the processes used to collect, verify and publish import data.

If evidence of misconduct emerges, the appropriate authorities would need to determine responsibility through established investigative and legal procedures.

At this stage, however, the committee has not publicly established that the discrepancies were caused by fraud or that any particular organisation or individual deliberately misreported import volumes.

The distinction matters: the purpose of an investigation is to establish what happened, not to treat unanswered questions as proof of wrongdoing.

The disputed figures do not, by themselves, show that Nigeria is facing a petrol shortage or that fuel prices will rise or fall.

Nevertheless, accurate import data is relevant to understanding the balance between domestic refining, imported supplies and national demand. It can also help policymakers evaluate supply trends and the effectiveness of regulatory oversight.

For consumers, the immediate importance of the inquiry is transparency. Clear and reliable data can strengthen public understanding of the petroleum market and support better-informed decisions by regulators and government institutions.

The investigation could also encourage more consistent reporting between agencies, particularly where their records are used for audits, policy decisions and public accountability.

Any direct effect on fuel availability, prices or government revenue will depend on what the inquiry establishes and whether subsequent action follows.

The Senate Committee on Public Accounts has resolved to summon the leadership of NMDPRA, NNPCL and NEITI for a joint engagement over the conflicting figures.

The agencies will be expected to explain their records and help establish the reasons for the differences. The committee’s findings will be important in determining whether the figures can be reconciled and whether further corrective or investigative action is necessary.

The outcome should be judged by the quality of the evidence presented, the clarity of the agencies’ explanations and whether the final records provide a consistent account of petrol imports during the period under review.

For now, the central issue is not whether wrongdoing has been proven, but why the figures differ so substantially and what steps are required to establish a reliable record.

The Senate’s decision to summon NMDPRA, NNPCL and NEITI places renewed attention on the accuracy of Nigeria’s petrol import records for 2022 and 2023.

With the NMDPRA reporting 3.29 billion litres for 2022 and 6.02 billion litres for 2023, while NNPCL recorded 6.27 billion litres and 3.88 billion litres respectively, the differences require a clear and evidence-based explanation.

The investigation offers an opportunity to improve transparency, strengthen public-sector record-keeping and clarify the data used to assess Nigeria’s petroleum market.

Until the agencies provide their explanations and the committee establishes its findings, the discrepancies should be treated as an unresolved accountability issue—not proof of fraud.

This report is published by 247NewsCheck — Trusted News. 24/7.

Source Attribution

Premium Times — reporting on the Senate Committee on Public Accounts’ decision and the conflicting figures.

Channels Television — coverage of the Senate’s rejection of the NMDPRA’s import records.

The Guardian Nigeria — report published on 22 October 2026 on the committee’s action.