Reps Threaten Arrest Warrant Against Ede Poly Rector, Bursar Over Audit Queries, Contract Irregularities

The threat was about forcing accountability, not announcing a conviction. The House of Representatives Public Accounts Committee wanted Federal Polytechnic, Ede’s Rector and Bursar to answer questions about unresolved audits, procurement concerns, and financial management. Their repeated absence made the Committee describe the situation as worrisome.

The panel reviewed the polytechnic’s 2021 Audit Report, findings from a South-West oversight exercise, and a petition. It also wanted documents and explanations about late financial statements, budget differences, missing procurement records, and alleged project problems. The Committee said the officials had to appear on Monday, October 19, 2026.

If the officials and other concerned staff failed to attend, the Committee said it would use the House’s constitutional and legislative powers to secure arrest warrants and compel their appearance. The hearing therefore became the next test of whether the institution would provide answers and records needed for the investigation.

An audit query is a request for clarification when auditors find a transaction, record, or procedure that appears unsupported or irregular. It matters because public institutions must explain how they received, spent, and controlled public money. Resolving a query may require documents, repayment, approval evidence, or another formal response.

The Committee identified three unresolved queries in Federal Polytechnic, Ede’s 2021 accounts. They involved an unretired cash advance, the engagement of an external solicitor without approval from the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, and foreign trips without evidence of authorisation by the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.

These were not the only concerns under review. The panel also questioned late audited statements for 2022, 2023, and 2024, budget differences, missing procurement records, and alleged project weaknesses. The unresolved queries kept the institution’s financial explanations incomplete and drove the demand for officials to appear.

The reported gap was approximately N772 million. It arose because Federal Polytechnic, Ede’s approved overhead budget for 2023 was N110.2 million, while its audited accounts recorded actual overhead expenditure of N882.5 million. The difference was several times the original budget.

The figures mattered because a budget sets an approved spending framework, while audited accounts show what was actually spent. Comparing the two can reveal overspending, weak planning, or the need for approvals and explanations. The Committee identified the discrepancy during its South-West oversight exercise.

The overhead gap was part of a wider review. The panel also identified an estimated N268.5 million slack in personnel expenditure: N2.862 billion was approved, but N2.593 billion was spent. Together, these figures raised questions about the quality of the institution’s budget estimates and its financial controls. The Committee sought explanations and supporting records.

The Committee’s inspection suggested that some construction work did not match the amounts already paid to contractors. It described the level of work on certain projects as falling short of the money disbursed. That matters because public funds are meant to produce the agreed work and quality.

During a physical inspection at the institution’s permanent site, members examined an ongoing lecture theatre construction project. They reportedly considered the work substandard. The inspection team specifically observed that the concrete flooring leading to the lecture theatre entrance had been poorly executed, and the material was reportedly so weak that it could be broken with an unspecified tool or force in the incomplete article.

The report does not give a final engineering assessment, a quantified payment-to-work comparison, or a completed investigation finding. It does show that construction quality became part of the Committee’s wider concerns about project execution, procurement records, and management of public funds. Further explanations and documents were expected at the hearing.

Legislative oversight allows a committee to examine how public institutions use money and follow rules. Its practical tools can include invitations or summonses to officials, requests for financial and procurement records, questioning at hearings, and reports to the wider legislature. The aim is to obtain evidence and explanations, not to replace a court.

The source specifically states that the House Committee would invoke relevant constitutional and legislative powers to secure arrest warrants and compel the Rector, Bursar, and other officials to attend. It also demanded documents needed to examine audit queries, procurement activity, and alleged financial irregularities. The article does not detail every legal procedure or limit.

Those powers are important because oversight depends on access to people and records. Here, repeated nonattendance and missing procurement documents were described as obstacles. If the officials failed to attend on October 19, 2026, the Committee said it would pursue compulsory attendance using the powers available to the House.

Procurement records create the paper trail behind public spending. They can show the approved need, procurement method, contract price, selected contractor, specifications, delivery terms, and payments. Bills of Quantities can detail the materials, quantities, and costs expected for construction. Contractor details help identify who was responsible for delivery.

These records let investigators compare the promise with the result. For example, they can check whether a lecture theatre’s stated materials and quantities match the work on site, whether payments followed certified progress, and whether the contractor was properly selected and approved. The article says the Committee could not obtain capital-expenditure and TETFund procurement documents despite repeated requests.

The missing records mattered because the Committee was already concerned about poor project execution and spending differences. It called the failure to produce them an impediment to legislative oversight. Without the documents, the panel’s ability to assess procurement activity and enforce accountability was reduced.

Public budgeting decides how much an institution expects to receive and spend, and for which purposes. Auditing then checks the records and compares approved plans with actual transactions. This creates a cycle of planning, spending, evidence, and review. It helps reveal overspending, unexplained balances, weak controls, or unsupported payments.

Pension and social-insurance remittances address a different but related duty: ensuring required employee-related deductions or contributions reach the responsible fund. In this case, the Committee said it found no documentary evidence that one per cent of personnel emoluments had been remitted to NSITF from 2023 to 2025. Records are essential because they prove whether the obligation was met.

Together, these systems support accountability and employee protection. A budget can expose unusual estimates; an audit can test actual spending; remittance evidence can show whether staff-related obligations were fulfilled. At Ede, the Committee’s concerns across all three areas led it to demand explanations and supporting documents.