Auditing and quality standards in Nigeria and Kenya

Which auditing and quality management standards apply in Nigeria and Kenya, who adopted them and regulates auditors, and how Achekam uses that knowledge.

By Achekam · 11 October 2026 · 4 min read · For Accountants & audit firms in Nigeria, Kenya

A firm that audits in Lagos and one that audits in Nairobi apply, for the most part, the same International Standards on Auditing. Where they differ is in who adopted those standards, who regulates the auditor, which additional rules sit on top, and how quality is inspected. Those differences decide which registrations a firm needs, what its auditor's report must contain and who may come knocking to review its files.

This article sets out the position in each country as recorded at the time of writing, the professional bodies involved, and how Achekam applies this knowledge to a Nigerian or Kenyan engagement. Standards and rules change, so check the current position with the regulator before relying on any detail.

Nigeria: the ISAs as issued, with ISQM 1 and 2

The Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRC) sets accounting and auditing standards in Nigeria under the FRC Act 2011, amended in 2023.

Nigeria applies the IAASB's International Standards on Auditing as issued, and ISQM 1 and ISQM 2 from 15 December 2022. A firm auditing in Nigeria is therefore expected to have a system of quality management under ISQM 1 and, where engagement quality reviews are required, to perform them under ISQM 2.

IFAC lists Nigeria's quality assurance framework as partially adopted, because the FRC's inspection of public interest entity audits is not yet fully operational. IFAC's member country profile for Nigeria sets out Nigeria's adoption status for international standards, the FRC's audit oversight role and the two professional bodies.

Two Nigerian rules add to the ISAs:

• Key audit matters. FRC Rule 9 requires key audit matters in auditor's reports on Nigerian listed entities, public companies, banks other than microfinance banks, insurers other than HMOs, mutual funds, pension funds and private holding companies of any of these. If none is communicated, the auditor notifies the FRC in writing before the audit concludes.
• ISA for LCE. The FRC published a notice adopting the ISA for Less Complex Entities on 28 July 2025.

Kenya: the ISAs and ISQM, with ICPAK as regulator

Kenya applies the IAASB's International Standards on Auditing as issued, with ISQM 1 and ISQM 2. Key audit matters are required for listed entities; no Kenyan extension of key audit matters to other public interest entities was found in the research.

ICPAK, Kenya's institute of public accountants, regulates accountants under the Accountants Act 2008, issuing practising certificates under section 21 and annual licences under section 22. Kenya has no independent audit oversight board; ICPAK runs audit quality reviews itself.

That structure differs from Nigeria's and from South Africa's, where a separate regulator oversees auditors. In Kenya, the professional body is also the body that reviews the quality of its members' audits.

The professional bodies

Where Achekam uses this knowledge

Achekam holds this adoption knowledge in its knowledge base and applies it on Nigerian and Kenyan engagements, mostly where a decision depends on it:

• ISA for LCE. A Nigerian firm can use the ISA for LCE only after a documented assessment and a partner's decision. For a Kenyan firm, Achekam refuses it as not adopted, because no ICPAK adoption was found. The ISA for LCE in Nigeria and Kenya covers that decision in detail.
• Key audit matters. On a Nigerian or Kenyan engagement, the Audit Control Tower works out whether key audit matters are required, using the FRC Rule 9 categories in Nigeria and listed status in Kenya.
• The engagement's regulatory picture. The Audit Control Tower also covers entity classification, whether company law requires an audit, an acceptance checklist, regulatory confirmations and sector checklists. The acceptance checklist must be approved by a partner other than its preparer before the audit report can be approved.
• Report wording. The audit report draft uses the country's legal wording, citing CAMA 2020 and the FRC Act in Nigeria or the Companies Act 2015 in Kenya, and the partner owns the final text.

Firms cannot browse the knowledge base

One limit to be clear about: firms cannot browse the knowledge base entries that record the FRC's and ICPAK's adoption of the ISAs and of ISQM 1 and 2. That screen is for Achekam staff only. The entries are used behind the scenes, for example in the ISA for LCE decision.

So when Achekam refuses the ISA for LCE on a Kenyan audit, or asks a Nigerian firm for a documented assessment, the firm cannot open the underlying entry to see exactly how it was recorded. The firm's own technical team should keep its own record of the adoption position in each country, from the regulators' and professional bodies' own publications, and review it when they announce changes.

Quality management in practice

Adopting ISQM 1 is a firm-wide obligation, not an engagement-level one. A firm with offices or clients in both countries should design one system of quality management that satisfies both, noting where Nigerian rules, such as the FRC's notification requirements, or Kenyan arrangements, such as ICPAK's quality reviews, add specific responses. Setting ISQM 1 quality objectives is a practical starting point.

Ask your technical partner to write a one-page summary of the adoption position in each country you practise in, with the source for each line, and diarise a date to check it again.

General guidance only, not advice on your own circumstances. Tax and payroll rules change: check the current position with the authority or your adviser.