Nigeria’s plan to attract up to $50 billion in new deepwater oil and gas investment could expose the sector to heightened financial crime risks if governance and control systems fail to keep pace with the expected capital inflows, Oyindamola Aboaba, a former senior associate at Deloitte, warned.

Aboaba, in an interview with The Guardian, said the risk would not necessarily arise from the size of the investment itself, but from the complex web of transactions and relationships that would accompany major oil and gas projects.

The Nigerian Upstream Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) said 22 major offshore projects expected between 2026 and 2030 could represent between $30 billion and $50 billion in investment, following more than $57 billion in approved field development plans since 2024.

“Large capital inflows create opportunity, but they also create complexity. In a sector like oil and gas, the risk does not come simply from the size of the investment, but from the number of transactions, counterparties and decision points that come with it,” Aboaba said.

She explained that the expected investments would pass through layers of contractors, subcontractors, joint ventures, consultants, logistics providers and other intermediaries, potentially making it difficult to determine who is being paid, what they are being paid for, and whether the price reflects genuine value.

According to her, contract awards, licensing, procurement, project approvals and the engagement of third parties claiming to facilitate access or accelerate processes could present significant financial crime vulnerabilities.

“These are where risks such as bribery, conflicts of interest, procurement fraud, inflated invoices and undisclosed related-party transactions can emerge,” she said.

The forensic and financial crimes expert said the key concern was whether Nigeria’s governance and control environment would expand at the same pace as investment.

“The concern is not the $50 billion itself. It is whether the governance and control environment expands at the same pace as the capital,” she told The Guardian.

The expert advised prospective investors to undertake enhanced due diligence where multiple warning signs emerge around companies, contractors and intermediaries.

She identified limited operating history among contractors that consistently win major contracts, unusually high commissions without clearly defined services, independent bidders sharing directors or addresses, unexplained related-party transactions and frequent ownership changes ahead of major deals as potential red flags.

Payments to jurisdictions unrelated to a transaction and counterparties whose financial capacity appears inconsistent with the size of their contracts should also attract scrutiny, she said.

“None of those facts automatically means wrongdoing has occurred. But they are signals that the investor should stop relying solely on the documents presented and begin independently testing the story behind them,” Aboaba said.

She added that unusual resistance to transparency should also concern investors, especially where it is difficult to establish who owns a company, why an intermediary is necessary, how a vendor was selected or how a fee was calculated.

Aboaba said corruption and procurement irregularities could undermine the economics of otherwise attractive oil and gas investments.

“If contracts are awarded because of relationships rather than capability or price, project costs can become inflated. If vendors are paying kickbacks, part of what appears to be a legitimate project expense may actually represent leakage.

If an undisclosed related party repeatedly receives contracts, the investor may be paying above-market prices without realising it,” she said.