By Muhammad Bello

The recent verbal fireworks at the National Assembly between the Senator representing Edo North, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, and the former Chief Financial Officer of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, Malam Umar Ajiya, serves as a poignant reminder of the dangerous trajectory our democratic oversight is taking. During a session of the Senate Public Accounts Committee, which was ostensibly convened to examine audit queries raised by the Office of the Auditor-General of the Federation regarding an alleged N210 trillion discrepancy, Nigerians witnessed a standard investigative hearing quickly degenerate into a highly volatile arena of verbal confrontation and emotional grandstanding.

While public frustration over the historical opacity of the national oil company is entirely understandable given current economic hardships across the federation, the resort to extreme name-calling and public humiliation by elected representatives is antithetical to the principles of fair hearing, institutional decorum, and legislative due process. In refusing to be intimidated by sweeping accusations leveled during the session, Malam Ajiya maintained his composure and insisted on clarifying technical issues surrounding the accounts of the NNPCL, thereby underscoring the importance of due process even in adversarial settings.

Legislative oversight, by its design under sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution, is meant to be a sober and forensic exercise aimed at uncovering facts and exposing structural leakages, rather than a platform for political theater or media sensationalism. While Senator Oshiomhole is widely regarded as a prominent political figure and experienced lawmaker, his conduct during this particular session was widely perceived as confrontational and inconsistent with the decorum expected of such proceedings. When parliamentary language descends into accusations and insults, the line between fact-finding and public confrontation becomes blurred.

This atmosphere also highlights a broader, recurring challenge within Nigeria’s governance framework: the reluctance of some ministries, departments, and agencies to fully engage with legislative oversight processes. For years, the National Assembly has raised concerns about the frequency of absences or delayed compliance with summons, as illustrated during the hearing by the absence of former GCEO Mele Kyari, which prompted discussion of possible enforcement measures. However, when oversight hearings are perceived as adversarial or lacking procedural balance, they risk discouraging constructive participation from public officials. A more structured and professional approach would likely improve compliance and transparency.

This brand of trial-by-media can undermine the credibility of parliamentary investigations, transforming committee hearings into highly publicized confrontations rather than disciplined inquiries. It was particularly notable that the central figure of the committee’s concern was an alleged N210 trillion discrepancy between 2017 and 2023. However, such large figures require careful contextualization and verification within broader macroeconomic and accounting frameworks before conclusions are drawn in public.

By presenting complex accounting matters—including accruals, reconciliations, and joint venture arrangements—without sufficient technical unpacking, there is a risk of generating public misunderstanding and undermining confidence in financial reporting institutions. A more methodical approach would prioritize detailed documentation review and expert analysis over emotionally charged exchanges.

The defense put forward by the former CFO emphasized that the NNPCL has made progress in publishing audited financial statements in recent years, improving transparency compared to past practices. While audited statements do not eliminate the possibility of inefficiencies or discrepancies, they provide a structured foundation for accountability inquiries. Where discrepancies are suspected, the appropriate path is a line-by-line examination supported by audit findings and supporting documentation.

Attempting to resolve technical financial issues through confrontation or public pressure does not necessarily advance accountability. Instead, it risks discouraging skilled professionals from participating in public service. The recommendation that independent investigative bodies such as the EFCC and NFIU be allowed to conduct forensic reviews remains a more structured and legally grounded approach to addressing complex financial questions.

True accountability does not require the humiliation of individuals appearing before parliament. It requires adherence to due process, commitment to factual accuracy, and respect for institutional roles. Until legislative oversight processes prioritize rigorous inquiry over performative confrontation, committee hearings may continue to generate public drama without necessarily delivering substantive institutional reform.

*Muhammad Bello writes from Abuja