N94.4bn Gas Fund Discrepancies: SERAP Seeks Full Investigation

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has urged President Bola Tinubu to investigate financial irregularities and revenue gaps estimated at N94.4 billion identified in an Auditor-General report involving Nigeria’s gas infrastructure revenue system.

The issue stems from the Auditor-General for the Federation’s report on non-compliance and internal control weaknesses. The audit flagged issues involving the Midstream and Downstream Gas Infrastructure Fund, including alleged under-remittance of gas flare penalties, statutory revenue gaps, consultancy payments and procurement concerns.

WHAT THE AUDIT FOUND

The largest component involved gas flare penalties. For 2023 and 2024, auditors identified discrepancies between revenues reported by the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission and amounts accounted for by the MDGIF.

The audit also questioned about N39.49 billion in statutory revenues connected with petroleum products and natural gas.Another N3.52 billion consultancy payment for revenue recovery was questioned, while other payments and contracts were also flagged.

ValidViewNetwork reports, the term “missing money” should be used carefully.

An audit query is not itself proof that money was stolen.

The MDGIF and NMDPRA have disputed the interpretation of the audit findings, arguing that some discrepancies resulted from timing and reconciliation issues rather than missing or unaccounted funds.That distinction is crucial.

WHY SERAP WANTS A PROBE

SERAP’s position is that the discrepancies should be independently investigated and properly accounted for.

The organisation argues that public revenue must be traceable, particularly where billions of naira are involved.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Auditor-General also raised concerns about the Fund’s failure to submit audited financial statements for several years, a situation that can weaken legislative oversight and public confidence.

ValidViewNetwork reports, a credible investigation should determine whether the figures represent actual losses, outstanding reconciliations, accounting differences, improper expenditure or recoverable public revenue.

That distinction should emerge from documents, reconciliation and lawful investigation, not political claims.

The broader lesson is straightforward: public revenue must be properly collected, recorded, audited and accounted for. Where auditors identify major discrepancies, the responsible institutions should provide evidence capable of resolving the questions.