The Transparency Network and Public Interest Initiative has faulted former Vice President Atiku Abubakar over questions he raised about the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited’s ₦11.2 trillion receivables from the Federation and possible links between government contractors and President Bola Tinubu’s re-election campaign.

The group argued that the figure recorded in NNPC’s accounts represents obligations owed to the company for advances and costs incurred on behalf of the Federation, rather than evidence that the money was channelled towards political activities.

Its spokesperson, Dr Ehizojie Emmanuel Anderson, made the remarks in a statement issued in Abuja on Monday.

Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), had called for greater disclosure concerning the ₦11.2 trillion recorded in NNPC’s 2025 accounts as other receivables from the Federation.

In a statement issued on his behalf by the Director of Strategic Communication of the ADC Presidential Campaign Council, Phrank Shaibu, the former Vice President asked the national oil company to disclose how much of the receivables related to protecting Nigeria’s oil and gas infrastructure, the payments made, contractors involved and services provided.

He separately raised questions about whether government contractors had provided financial or material support to Tinubu’s re-election activities.

The allegations of a connection between government contracts and political campaign financing have not been independently established.

Responding to Atiku’s comments, Anderson argued that the accounting treatment of the ₦11.2 trillion needed to be distinguished from payments made to individual contractors.

“These are not hidden campaign funds. They are recorded Federation obligations, disclosed by the company itself, accumulated over time, and tied to advances and the cost of protecting national oil and gas assets under an approved framework,” Anderson said.

He accused the former Vice President of politicising NNPC’s financial disclosures and said scrutiny of the national oil company’s operations should be based on its accounts and other documentary evidence.

NNPC’s 2025 financial statements recorded approximately ₦11.2 trillion under other receivables from the Federation.

The company’s accounts describe such receivables as relating to advances to the Federation and costs incurred in securing the country’s oil and gas assets.

The figure does not, by itself, establish that ₦11.2 trillion was paid to pipeline surveillance contractors.

Atiku’s argument was that the aggregate figure did not provide sufficient detail to determine how much was specifically spent on pipeline security, who received payments and what results were achieved.

The Transparency Network maintained that NNPC’s disclosure of the receivables showed that the transactions were captured in its financial records.

Anderson also defended the company’s management under Group Chief Executive Officer Bayo Ojulari, arguing that the publication of financial information should encourage evidence-based scrutiny of its operations.

He said the ₦11.2 trillion figure should not be interpreted as evidence of campaign financing without documentary proof establishing such a connection.

“A man who has read the report would not be asking Nigerians to treat a multi-year receivable as proof that NNPC is bankrolling a political campaign,” Anderson said.

Atiku’s statement, however, sought a more detailed disclosure of the components of the receivable and separately questioned the relationship between government contractors and political campaign financing.

He specifically called for the publication of relevant contracts, payment records, procurement information and outcomes associated with oil and gas infrastructure protection.

The former Vice President also raised questions about Tantita Security Services, which has been involved in pipeline surveillance, and demanded disclosure of any financial or material support government contractors may have provided to Tinubu’s re-election activities.

The Transparency Network rejected attempts to draw a connection between NNPC’s receivables and political campaign financing without evidence.

Anderson said the company’s reforms under Ojulari should instead be assessed against its financial disclosures, operating performance and compliance with applicable accountability requirements.

“The attack on the oil giant is unnecessary and unwarranted,” he said.

The group also criticised Atiku’s previous position on restructuring and private-sector participation in the national oil industry, while arguing that NNPC should be allowed to continue its current reforms.

It called for public debate over the company’s finances to focus on documented expenditure, contractual arrangements and audited financial information rather than political allegations.

The dispute places renewed attention on the level of detail contained in NNPC’s financial disclosures.

While the company’s accounts identify the broad nature of its receivables from the Federation, Atiku has argued that Nigerians should be provided with a more detailed breakdown of expenditure associated with protecting oil and gas infrastructure.

The Transparency Network, on the other hand, maintains that the existence of the receivable in NNPC’s accounts should not be presented as evidence of political campaign financing without further proof.