Former FRC CEO, Daniel Asapokhai Questioned for N138.7 Million in Unremitted Surplus, Unapproved Legal Fees and Foreign Trips While in Office – Secrets Reporters Nigeria

Secrets Reporters

In a detailed indictment contained in the Auditor-General for the Federation’s Annual Report on Non-Compliance and Internal Control Weaknesses for the year ended 31 December 2020, the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria under then Executive Secretary and Chief Executive Officer Daniel Asapokhai has been cited for irregularities totaling approximately N138.73 million across six separate issues in the 2019 financial year.

SecretsReporters has exclusively obtained the relevant section of the multi-part report covering the Revenue and Economic Sector, which draws on records that the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation would ordinarily process in the course of consolidating federal accounts.

Asapokhai, appointed by President Muhammadu Buhari in January 2017 to replace the dismissed Jim Obazee, remained in post throughout the audit period and into 2020 before Shuaibu Adamu Ahmed took over in May 2021. The report paints a picture of repeated departures from established controls at an agency whose statutory mandate is to promote high-quality financial reporting and corporate governance across the Nigerian economy.

One of the largest single findings concerns the non-remittance of operating surplus. Of a calculated N457.58 million operating surplus for 2019, the Council remitted only N12.77 million, roughly 2.17 percent, to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, leaving an outstanding balance of N100.12 million against the 80 percent threshold required by Section 22 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2007 and reinforced by Treasury Circular TRY/A10&B10/2016.

Management argued that its calculation followed the Act and the Council’s audited financial statements, yet the Auditor-General insisted on full justification and refund, failing which sanctions under Financial Regulation 3112(i) would apply. The shortfall directly reduced resources available for federal budgetary financing at a time when many MDAs were already under pressure.

Equally striking was the payment of N10.2 million to external solicitors without documented prior approval and fee determination by the Attorney-General of the Federation, contrary to Establishment Circular SGF/PS/CIR/625/1 of 16 July 2003. Although management stated that approval had been obtained for one firm and later relied upon for others after services proved unsatisfactory, the Auditor-General found the evidence insufficient and recommended recovery.

Parallel concerns arose over N7.81 million spent on foreign trips, including the Executive Secretary’s attendance at the Mo Ibrahim Governance Weekend in Abidjan, without the Head of Civil Service approval required by Establishment Circular SGF/OP/I/S.3/XII/158 of 15 October 2019. Management contended that board-level travel might fall outside the circular’s scope, yet the recommendation for recovery remained firm.

Further lapses included N8.1 million described by auditors as unapproved staff allowances (management insisted the sum covered a technical committee dinner and recharge cards), N9.9 million in VAT and withholding tax deducted from a N69 million office-rent payment but not evidenced as remitted to the Federal Inland Revenue Service, and N2.62 million in diesel procurements that appeared to aggregate beyond the N200,000 direct-procurement threshold, resulting in an estimated N353,000 tax-revenue loss. Each item attracted the standard call for justification, recovery and remittance, with potential sanctions under the relevant Financial Regulations.

Taken together, the findings portray an institution charged with enforcing financial discipline that itself struggled to meet basic statutory and circular requirements. The non-remittance of the bulk of its operating surplus stands out as particularly consequential, given the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s explicit design to channel corporate surpluses into the Consolidated Revenue Fund for national prioritisation. While management offered explanations for each query, the Auditor-General’s consistent recommendations for recovery underscore the view that internal controls were insufficient to prevent or promptly correct the irregularities.