OBI MBIERI, IMO STATE — The controversy surrounding oil exploration, community leadership and alleged oil-related revenue in the Mbieri area has raised a fundamental question: who is responsible for accounting for money said to have accrued to the host community, and where is the documentary evidence showing how that money was handled?

The question is particularly important because two related but distinct issues have increasingly become intertwined.

One concerns Achi Mbieri Community, where stakeholders publicly demanded accountability in January 2026 over oil revenue they said had been paid by Seplat Energy.

The other concerns Obi Mbieri Autonomous Community, where a fresh dispute has emerged over Seplat Energy's engagement with community leadership and the handling of issues surrounding preliminary oil exploration.

These matters should not automatically be treated as the same dispute or as proof that money was diverted. They involve different community structures and allegations that still require documentary verification.

What is clear is that there is now a public demand for transparency.

In January, the Achi Stakeholders Forum said some revenue connected to oil operations had been paid by Seplat Energy and alleged that the money was distributed to component villages without adequate supervision by the community's executive council. Community Financial Secretary Richard Durunna said he was unaware of the payment until villages reported receiving money. The stakeholders subsequently called for an explanation and a forensic investigation.

Months later, the controversy surrounding Obi Mbieri has taken a different turn. An August 11 report alleged concerns over Seplat's engagement with community leadership and questions over who was authorised to represent Obi Mbieri. A subsequent August 18 rejoinder disputed those claims and maintained that Seplat's activities in Mbieri were still at the preliminary exploration stage.

Against that background, Eziokwubundu believes the most constructive way forward is not to make accusations without evidence, but to ask the questions that can be answered through documents.

1. How much money was actually received?

This is the starting point.

If money was paid by Seplat Energy to a community, community institution or Host Community Development Trust connected with the oil operations, the first requirement should be a precise figure.

Was it:

• thousands of naira?
• millions of naira?
• a statutory Host Community Development Trust contribution?
• compensation?
• land-related payment?
• surface rent?
• another contractual payment?
• or money for a specific community project?

Public reports in January established that Achi Mbieri stakeholders alleged that Seplat had made a payment connected to oil revenue. But those reports did not publish an authenticated Seplat payment advice, bank statement or other primary financial document showing the exact amount.

The community deserves the number.

If the payment exists, there should be a payment record.

If several payments were made, there should be a schedule showing each payment, date, purpose and recipient.

2. When was the money received?

The date matters almost as much as the amount.

A proper audit trail should establish:

Date of payment → amount → payer → recipient → purpose → subsequent disbursement.

Without the date, it becomes difficult to establish whether the payment occurred before or after a particular leadership decision, community meeting, agreement or change in the applicable host-community arrangement.

This is especially important because the Petroleum Industry Act introduced a formal Host Community Development Trust framework.

Seplat's own social-performance reporting describes the establishment and operationalisation of its host-community development structures and its funding obligations under the PIA framework.

Therefore, any claim that money was paid under the PIA should be capable of being matched to a particular accounting period and payment record.

3. Which account received the money?

This may be the single most important question.

Was the money paid into:

• a registered Host Community Development Trust account?
• an autonomous community account?
• a town union account?
• a project account?
• a personal account?
• a joint account?
• another designated account?

The answer would immediately help distinguish between different categories of money.

A legitimate HCDT contribution should have an identifiable institutional trail.

Likewise, if money was paid directly to a community institution under a separate arrangement, that should be documented.

The public should not have to rely solely on verbal explanations when financial records can establish the recipient.

4. Who authorised the account?

Knowing the receiving account is only half of the story.

Who opened it?

Who were the authorised signatories?

Was the account approved by the relevant community executive?

Was there a resolution authorising the account?

Was it established under a registered HCDT?

Were trustees involved?

Were traditional rulers involved?

Were town union officials involved?

These questions become particularly important because the current Obi Mbieri dispute includes competing claims about which community structures should be recognised in dealings concerning the community.

A recent rejoinder concerning the Obi Mbieri controversy argued that companies deal with officially recognised Town Union leadership rather than directly with traditional rulers or individual community officials. That assertion itself should be tested against the applicable legal documents and Seplat's records rather than simply accepted or rejected.

5. What exactly was the payment for?

This question must be answered before anyone describes money as "oil revenue."

The phrase can be misleading because several different forms of payment can arise in an oil-producing area.

A payment could relate to:

Host Community Development Trust funding

or

compensation

or

land access

or

surface rights

or

community development

or

a specific project

or another contractual or statutory obligation.

These are not necessarily the same thing.

The January 2026 Achi Mbieri controversy was reported as involving money connected with the Petroleum Industry Act and Seplat Energy. But the precise legal and accounting classification of the payment should be established from the underlying documentation.

That distinction is essential.

A newspaper should not label every payment from an oil company "oil revenue" without establishing its legal basis.

6. Was the money actually HCDT money?

This is perhaps the most important technical question in the entire controversy.

Under the Petroleum Industry Act, host communities have a formal development framework.

Seplat's social-performance reporting discusses its Host Community Development Trust structures and the company's commitment to funding them in accordance with the PIA framework.

But the existence of an HCDT system does not automatically prove that every payment allegedly received by a community was HCDT money.

That needs to be demonstrated.

If the disputed payment was an HCDT contribution, there should be evidence showing:

• the name of the trust;
• the relevant host communities;
• the amount contributed;
• the financial year;
• the date of payment;
• the receiving account;
• the trustees;
• the approved projects;
• and subsequent expenditure.

If it was not HCDT money, then the community should identify what the payment actually represented.

7. Who are the trustees and authorised community representatives?

This question has become particularly significant because the current Obi Mbieri controversy is also about representation.

The August 11 report alleged that Seplat representatives had engaged someone at the palace of Obi Mbieri's traditional ruler and that community stakeholders questioned the person's identity and authority.

The August 18 rejoinder presented a different account, arguing that Seplat's preliminary activities were continuing through recognised Town Union structures rather than the palace.

Those competing accounts point to a fundamental issue:

Who is legally and institutionally authorised to speak for the relevant host community?

That question should be answered by documents—not rumours.

For an HCDT, the public should be able to establish the trustees and relevant governance structures.

For an autonomous community, the applicable constitution, registered leadership structure, resolutions and other recognised documents should establish who has authority to act.

8. What projects were approved?

If the money was intended for community development, the next question is simple:

What was the money supposed to build or fund?

A transparent community-development system should produce a project trail.

For every approved project, residents should be able to know:

• project name;
• location;
• approved budget;
• contractor;
• commencement date;
• completion date;
• amount paid;
• current status;
• beneficiary community.

This is particularly relevant because Seplat's 2025 Social Performance Report documents community-focused programmes in Imo State.

The report specifically identifies Community Secondary School, Mbieri, Imo State, as the winner of the Eastern Asset STEAM Project Exhibition.

That establishes a documented Seplat education-programme connection with the school.

But it should not be confused with proof of an oil-revenue payment to Obi Mbieri.

The two issues should be kept separate.

9. How much has actually been spent?

A project approval is not the same thing as expenditure.

A community can approve a ₦100 million project and ultimately spend a different amount.

Therefore, residents need access to:

Approved amount + amount released + amount spent + balance remaining.

If a project has been completed, there should be evidence of completion.

If it is incomplete, there should be an explanation.

If money was distributed directly to villages, there should be a distribution schedule showing:

Village → amount allocated → date paid → receiving account/person → purpose.

This is especially relevant to the January Achi Mbieri allegations, because stakeholders alleged that money had been distributed among component villages without adequate executive-council supervision.

Those allegations remain allegations unless supported by the underlying financial records.

10. Where are the supporting documents?

Ultimately, this is where the entire controversy should end.

Not with accusations.

Not with counter-accusations.

With documents.

The relevant records could include:

• Seplat payment advice;
• bank statements;
• HCDT financial statements;
• trust registration documents;
• trustee records;
• community resolutions;
• meeting minutes;
• approved budgets;
• project lists;
• contractor agreements;
• receipts;
• invoices;
• distribution schedules;
• audit reports;
• completion certificates;
• correspondence between Seplat and community representatives.

If these records exist, producing them would settle many of the questions currently generating suspicion.

If they do not exist, that absence itself raises a governance question.

Why the distinction between Achi Mbieri and Obi Mbieri matters

One issue deserves particular attention.

The January accountability controversy was reported as involving Achi Mbieri Community.

The current August dispute concerns Obi Mbieri Autonomous Community.

They should not automatically be treated as one entity.

The August 18 rejoinder goes further, asserting that the Aku Oil Field lies within both Obi Mbieri and Ezi Mbieri Autonomous Communities and identifying Umuagwu in Obi Mbieri and Achi in Ezi as host villages. Those claims need to be independently verified against official petroleum and land records.

That verification is important because the identity of the host community determines who should be involved in consultation, development arrangements and potentially community-benefit structures.

What Seplat's own records tell us

Seplat's 2025 Social Performance Report confirms that the company has community-development and social-investment activities in the Eastern Asset and specifically names Community Secondary School, Mbieri in connection with its PEARLs/STEAM programme.

That is useful evidence—but it does not answer the central financial questions surrounding the current dispute.

There is a difference between:

CSR/education support

and

statutory Host Community Development Trust funding

and

other payments associated with oil operations.

A credible investigation must keep those categories separate.

The bigger question: whose money was it?

At the heart of the controversy is a question that should be answered with documentary evidence:

If Seplat paid money connected to the oil operations in the Mbieri area, under what legal or contractual obligation was it paid, to which institution was it paid, and who had authority to administer it?

That question is more important than simply asking whether somebody "received oil money."

Because once the legal character of the payment is established, the accountability trail becomes much easier to follow.

What remains unproven

At the time of publication, the publicly available evidence does not establish that anyone diverted Seplat's money.

What has been publicly reported is that Achi Mbieri stakeholders alleged improper or inequitable handling of funds and called for accountability and investigation. The community's Financial Secretary also said he was unaware of the payment until villages reported receiving money.

Separately, the August Obi Mbieri dispute involves allegations concerning community representation and Seplat's engagement, while a rejoinder disputes those allegations and says the company's activities are still at a preliminary exploration stage.

Those competing accounts should not be presented as established facts.

The unresolved questions are therefore:

How much money?

For what purpose?

Paid when?

Paid to whom?

Into which account?

Under whose authority?

Under which legal framework?

For which host community?

For which projects?

And where are the documents?

A call for transparency

The people of Mbieri have a legitimate interest in knowing how natural-resource development affects their communities.

That interest does not require anyone to be presumed guilty.

It requires transparency.

If Seplat has made payments connected to host-community development or other community obligations, the relevant records should be capable of establishing what was paid and why.

If community leaders received or administered such funds, they should be able to provide a clear account.

If the allegations are wrong, documentary evidence can settle them.

If the allegations are correct, documentary evidence can identify where accountability lies.

And if the issue is simply a misunderstanding between different categories of oil-company payments, the records can resolve that too.

For Eziokwubundu, the appropriate position is therefore straightforward:

Do not convict anyone in the court of public opinion before the documents are examined. But do not ask the public to accept unexplained oil-related payments without demanding the documents either.

The people deserve to know what entered, where it went, who authorised it, what was spent, and what remains.

That is not an accusation.

It is accountability.