The Integrity Advocacy for Development Initiative (IADI) has called for a thorough, evidence-based investigation into allegations of contract fraud and misappropriation involving about ₦6.69 billion at the Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NNRA).
IADI made the call on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, during a press briefing in Abuja, following a report published by Secrets Reporters on October 1, which alleged that NNRA Director-General, Yau Usman Idris, misappropriated the funds.
The organisation also addressed the October 5 protest by Global Integrity Watch (GIW) at the NNRA headquarters, where the group demanded accountability, responses to audit observations and Freedom of Information requests, as well as changes in the leadership of the authority.
Speaking at the briefing, IADI Executive Director, Comrade Ofomhi Christopher, said the allegations should be subjected to proper verification rather than being treated as established facts.
Christopher stressed that audit observations, while serious, do not automatically amount to a judicial finding of fraud or personal misappropriation.
He said the public should be provided with details of the transactions and contracts referenced in the allegations, the periods involved, the status of the projects or services, responses from the NNRA and whether any of the audit observations had been resolved or referred for further investigation.
The group also referenced an explanation attributed to the NNRA Director-General concerning the authority’s 2024 capital budget.
According to the explanation, NNRA’s capital budget for 2024 was about ₦2.7 billion, comprising approximately ₦200 million for projects directly under the authority and about ₦2.5 billion for constituency projects, with an additional ₦200 million regional project bringing the figure cited to about ₦2.9 billion.
IADI said the explanation should not be regarded as conclusive but should be tested against appropriation documents, budget releases, procurement records, payment documents, project records and relevant audit reports.
The organisation urged authorities to physically verify projects alleged to be unexecuted, examine contracts and bills of quantities where price inflation is alleged, scrutinise procurement and ownership records involving contractors, and trace financial transactions where diversion of funds is suspected.
“Investigate the allegations. Verify the records. Examine the audit observations. Inspect the projects and services where necessary. Examine the procurement process. Follow the money. Hear the response. And let the evidence determine the conclusion,” the group said.
On the GIW protest, IADI acknowledged the constitutional right of civil society organisations to peaceful assembly and association but urged advocacy groups to conduct protests responsibly and within the law.
The organisation also said unresolved Freedom of Information requests should not, by themselves, be interpreted as proof that allegations contained in such requests are true.
It urged civil society groups to make use of the legal mechanisms provided under the Freedom of Information Act, including judicial review where access to requested information has been denied.
IADI further called on both government institutions and civil society organisations to respect their respective responsibilities, stressing that lawful protests should remain peaceful while government agencies should respect citizens’ constitutional rights.
The organisation called on relevant audit and oversight bodies to clarify the status of the NNRA audit observations, disclose the responses received from the authority and state whether the issues have been resolved, sustained or referred for further investigation.
IADI maintained that its position was not intended to shield the NNRA or any public official from scrutiny but to ensure that allegations of wrongdoing are determined through credible evidence and due process.
“The public deserves accountability. But the public also deserves accuracy, fairness and evidence,” the organisation said.
It added: “A headline is not a verdict. An allegation is not evidence. An audit observation is not automatically a finding of personal guilt.”
The organisation urged all parties involved to allow official records, investigations and evidence to determine the outcome of the allegations.
Leave feedback about this