The decision of the Senate to reverse an order of its committee demanding the arrest of former Group Chief Executive Officer (GCEO) of Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), Mele Kyari, may be procedurally right, but it is capable of sending a wrong signal regarding transparency and accountability in the management of public funds. The Senate Committee on Public Accounts had ordered the arrest of Kyari after he failed to honour several invitations to appear before the committee to explain why and how N210 trillion was not accounted for in the company’s audit report covering 2017 to 2023. However, the Senate said such an order was beyond the committee’s power. Nevertheless, it is important that the matter is not terminated at that level, in the interest of the public and for the sake of the legislature’s integrity.

Senator Adams Oshiomhole, who publicly commented in support of the committee’s action, was right to remind Nigerians that demanding accountability for public funds is not an act of hostility toward the government. Indeed, accountability, transparency and probity constitute the very essence of democratic governance. Democracies thrive not because difficult questions are avoided, but because institutions possess the courage and independence to ask them.

The controversy surrounding the NNPCL did not originate from partisan politics or media speculation. It arose from reports by the Office of the Auditor-General of the Federation covering the period between 2017 and 2023, when the national oil company was led by Mele Kyari. Those reports reportedly contained 19 audit queries involving transactions and accounting entries exceeding N210 trillion. The figures themselves came from NNPCL’s own audited financial statements prepared by internationally recognised auditors.

Faced with these observations indicating that the funds were not accounted for, the Senate Committee on Public Accounts embarked on what ought to be regarded as a routine constitutional exercise. It sought explanations from the corporation. The NNPCL responded that approximately N103 trillion represented accrued expenses, while another N107 trillion constituted receivables.

Adedapo Segun, chief financial officer of the company, explained that the missing funds are cash calls requested by joint venture (JV) partners and settlements to the JVs. He spoke at a session of the Senate Committee on Public Accounts, chaired by Aliyu Wadada, following the committee’s alarm over the money. According to Segun: “The N103 trillion and N107 trillion are made up of joint venture cash calls that have been requested by the JV operators and JV cash call payments made by NNPCL, which are yet to be reconciled because governance procedures were not done at that time…That is why you see the description reflecting those two items would be washed out because they are two sides of the same transaction, which is the cash calls by JV partners and the settlement by NNPCL.”

Yet, dissatisfied with the written explanations, the committee demanded oral testimony from present and former officials. Such insistence was neither extraordinary nor vindictive. Oversight without interrogation is no oversight at all. No one has alleged, much less established, that N210 trillion was stolen. No court has found Kyari guilty of wrongdoing. Neither has any forensic audit concluded that public funds disappeared. But these realities do not diminish the obligation to explain. Indeed, innocence is best vindicated through openness, not silence.

It is therefore disturbing that after the committee reportedly held nine sittings without Kyari’s appearance and eventually ordered his arrest to compel attendance, the Senate itself abruptly reversed course. Barely 48 hours later, the upper chamber publicly distanced itself from the committee, rebuked Oshiomhole and halted the arrest process. Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele argued that the committee lacked the authority to issue a warrant and warned against violations of due process.

Due process is indispensable. No democratic institution should act outside the law. Yet procedural concerns should not become a convenient refuge for institutional retreat. The issue is not whether the committee followed the correct legal mechanism; the issue is whether the Senate itself possesses the resolve to pursue a matter involving the management of resources on which the lives and welfare of millions of Nigerians depend, or whether the Senate is portraying itself as unwilling to seek clarification in huge public spending shrouded in haze. Or is the Senate satisfied with the scanty explanation offered by NNPCL on the funds?

The volte-face raises troubling questions. Why should the Senate suddenly appear reluctant to pursue an investigation arising from constitutional audit reports? Why should a matter of such monumental public importance become ensnared in internal legislative politics? Why should the National Assembly, constitutionally vested with the sacred duty of oversight, appear hesitant in the face of resistance from those it is empowered to scrutinise?

The impression being created is unfortunate. It suggests inconsistency where firmness is required. It raises fears that politics may be triumphing over accountability. Such perceptions are dangerous in a country where public confidence in institutions has already been severely eroded.

The Senate must appreciate that its credibility is on trial no less than the NNPCL’s. Nigerians deserve answers, not confusion. The constitutional framework is clear. Government agencies and public corporations are required to render accounts to the Auditor-General, who in turn reports to the National Assembly. Legislative scrutiny is not optional; it is a constitutional imperative. Where auditors indicate that explanations are inadequate, parliament is duty-bound to seek clarification.

The Human Rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has now approached the Federal High Court seeking an order compelling the Senate to disclose the report relating to the alleged discrepancies. His action reflects a growing public demand for transparency. In matters involving public resources, secrecy breeds suspicion while openness strengthens trust.

Kyari should appear before the Senate and answer the questions arising from the audit observations. If legal procedures require that another mechanism be adopted to secure his attendance, the Senate should employ it. What it must not do is abandon or frustrate the investigation. Nine invitations cannot be treated with contempt without consequences. No public officer, past or present, should be allowed to place himself above institutions created by the Constitution.

This matter transcends personalities. It is bigger than Kyari, bigger than Oshiomhole and bigger even than the Tinubu administration. It is about whether Nigeria’s democratic institutions have the courage to hold those in power accountable. A legislature that shrinks from its oversight responsibilities weakens democracy itself.

Transparency and prudent management of public resources remain indispensable to national development. The Senate must not become an obstacle to those ideals. It must not allow constitutional oversight to degenerate into a charade. It must not blink.

The investigation should continue. The questions should be answered. And if wrongdoing is eventually established, those responsible must face the consequences prescribed by law. To do otherwise would be to reinforce the cynical belief that in Nigeria, accountability is pursued vigorously only until powerful interests become uncomfortable. That would be a tragedy not merely for the Senate, but for democracy itself.