The House of Representatives and the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) have concluded their investigations into the alleged non-existence Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) on a sad note that gave all indicted government officials a clean bill of health as was predicted by many analysts, but the man at the center of the saga, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew is crying foul insisting that both the ICPC and the lower legislative chamber of the National Assembly are far from the truth in their verdict
By Our Correspondent
At the last count, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (HCSF), Mrs. Esther Didi Walson-Jack, admitted before the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee investigating the alleged creation of the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC), and the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), without legal backing, that her office failed to carry out adequate due diligence before issuing key approvals.
Appearing before the Committee, Walson-Jack acknowledged that her office relied on documents later discovered to be fake in granting authorised recruitment waiver to the alleged illegal PFIPC.
“We now, having seen all the facts and observed all the documents, concede that we ought to have carried out more due diligence in discharge of the duties of the office in issuing an authorised establishment and a recruitment waiver to the PEAC/PFIPC,” she told lawmakers.
The Head of Service explained that officials of the purported agency presented themselves as representatives of a newly established federal body during the 2025 Annual Manpower Budget Defence, accompanied by what appeared to be an Establishment Act and a letter appointing a Director-General.
According to her, under established civil service procedures, newly-created agencies seeking to recruit staff, are expected to present an enabling Act; the appointment letter of the chief executive; and other supporting documents before an authorised establishment and provisional recruitment waiver are issued.
“We processed requests based on documents presented”, Watson-Jack said, adding that her office processed the request based on the documents presented, noting that the case was unprecedented.
“In over almost a century of the Federal Civil Service, we have never encountered a situation like the current one. Criminals always try to be a step ahead of law enforcement”, she said.
However, under questioning by the Committee, Walson-Jack admitted that the Establishment Act submitted by the purported agency was not authentic.
“I requested to see the documents myself and I saw that the Establishment Act was not really an authentic Act. I have almost 30 years of legal practice experience and immediately I saw it, I knew it was not.
“I’m not a forensic expert, but I can clearly see that the signatures are not the same”.
The above sums up the probe of the House of Representatives into the scandalous PFIPC penultimate week. Remarkably, the man at the center of the saga, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi was never invited by the House of Representatives to submit his own version of the story. The House Committee argued that the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) said it required a court order to release Adeyemi to testify before the House. The development, many analysts regarded as an imbalanced investigation.
However, the embattled Director-General of the controversial PFIPC, Adeyemi, asked the House of Representatives to issue an administrative clearance to allow him testify in the investigative hearing of the lower chamber.
The Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, had at a sitting of the ad-hoc panel investigating the issue, told lawmakers that the police couldn’t produce Adeyemi before the panel because court clearance was needed to present him.
But in a statement by his legal team dated Sunday, August 1, Adeyemi, who is currently in the custody of the NPF, said any legislative report on the PFIPC scandal without his testimony was “fundamentally flawed”. Adeyemi’s legal team is led by Festus Akhigbe.
His legal team said their client was being framed as an “isolated, mastermind impostor who single-handedly fabricated a Federal Government agency.”
The legal team said the administrative footprints of the PFIPC indicate a different story from the narrative being portrayed in the public.
The legal team said the House of Representatives must probe the “undisputed institutional actions that created and validated” the PFIPC.
“The Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, SGF, formally acknowledged documentation and facilitated official office allocations within the Federal Secretariat Complex.
“If these documents were crude forgeries, how did the central administrative engine of the Federal Government act upon them?
“The Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, OAGF, and Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, acted on official documentation to issue administrative budget codes, grant self-accounting status, post federal civil service staff to the council, and officially open operational accounts.
“The Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, OHCSF, formally approved the establishment structure and granted recruitment waivers that enabled the onboarding of three hundred and fourteen (314) personnel.
“The Budget Office of the Federation and National Assembly processed and vetted documentation leading to the formal insertion of a N1.302 billion allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act, passed by both chambers of the National Assembly and signed into law by the President.
“Security agencies and anti-graft bodies, heads of major security agencies attended programmes organised by the council. Furthermore, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, allocated a property to the council, requested a N300 million processing consideration, and its leadership presented a plaque of recognition to the council’s leadership,’’ Adeyemi’s legal team stated.
The team said it was an “administrative impossibility for an unassisted individual” to mislead multiple agencies of the Federal Government.
It alleged that their client was “being made a scapegoat to cover up deep-seated institutional lapses, procedural breakdowns and internal approvals within the government structure.
“In light of the ongoing proceedings by the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, we formally request that the panel issue the necessary administrative clearance to allow our client, Prince Adeniyi Matthew Adeyemi, to appear in person and testify.
Report withoutmy input flawed
“Any investigative outcome or final legislative report produced without affording our client a direct hearing would be fundamentally flawed, incomplete and a breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing (audi alteram partem).
“To reach a definitive conclusion, the committee must examine not only institutional witnesses but also the primary subject at the centre of this controversy.”
The controversy surrounding the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, PFIPC, erupted after the Presidency disowned the body, declaring that it was never established through any law, executive order or presidential directive, despite operating publicly as a Federal Government agency.
The saga took a dramatic turn when the Presidency announced that the PFIPC lacked legal backing and directed the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), to investigate its establishment, operations and funding.
The probe is expected to determine how the council obtained official recognition, secured budgetary allocations, operated bank accounts and allegedly used government documents and insignia without lawful authorisation.
The controversy has since widened beyond the alleged existence of a “fake” government agency to expose possible institutional failures within Nigeria’s public administration. Lawmakers have questioned how an entity later declared unauthorised found its way into the national budget and operated for years without raising red flags.
Appearing before the House of Representatives Committee investigating the matter, the Director-General of the Budget Office, Tanimu Yakubu, maintained that the Budget Office did not create the PFIPC but merely processed submissions based on existing government records and administrative codes.
The explanation has shifted attention to other agencies involved in the budget preparation and approval process.
The PFIPC affair has, therefore, evolved into a broader governance issue, raising concerns about weaknesses in budget scrutiny, inter-agency coordination, document verification and oversight within the federal bureaucracy.
The outcome of the ongoing investigations by the ICPC and the National Assembly is expected to determine how the council came into existence, whether public funds were improperly accessed, and if public officials will be held accountable for any wrongdoing.
As criticism poured in against non-invitation of Adeyemi to testify, the House of Representatives Ad hoc Committee said it would interrogate him in an undisclosed location to respect the constitutional principles of separation of powers. The Committee said this on Tuesday, August 4, 2026. This is even as the Managing Director of a private firm, Divine Dopacy Nigeria Limited, Mr. Gbenga Collins, the same day narrated before the Committee how he allegedly paid N400 million to the purported PFIPC DG after being promised a contract to renovate and furnish what was presented to him as the official residence of the agency’s chief executive.
Chairman of the Committee, Yusuf Gagdi, who disclosed this at the panel’s sitting, said the National Assembly would respect the constitutional principle of separation of powers and would not seek to override a subsisting judicial order.
“As an arm of government, we respect the principle of federalism and separation of powers. We respect the powers of the judiciary, the executive and we equally limit ourselves within our own powers.
“We do not have the power as the National Assembly to vacate an existing court order and say that somebody who is in the custody of the Nigerian Police should leave the police to appear before the National Assembly,” Gagdi had said.
The chairman, however, disclosed that the committee would interact with Adeyemi at an undisclosed date and location in a manner designed not to compromise investigations being conducted by security and anti-graft agencies, adding, “We will not announce to the general public when we will interact with Prince Adeniyi. We will not, because the ICPC are investigating this matter. EFCC are investigating this matter. Part of this matter is before the court of law and many other agencies.
“To say that we will put the suspect under direct camera and interact with him the way we are interacting with everyone here will definitely undermine the ongoing investigation by the EFCC and ICPC.
“In view of that, we are meeting him on an unannounced date and at an unannounced time. We will meet him with a camera that will exonerate members of the committee on our interaction with him.
“Just as you came here with your lawyer, we will inform the police whenever we are going to meet him and, as directed by the court, it will be in the presence of his lawyers,” Gagdi said.
He maintained that the committee’s priority was to obtain necessary clarifications from Adeyemi rather than insist on his physical appearance at the public hearing.
“Whether he appears before this committee or this committee appears before him, the most important thing is to have an interaction with him to get some things clarified. And we are going to do just that,” he said.
Gagdi added that the committee would continue its public hearing tomorrow and conclude outstanding engagements within the week.
However, the House of Representatives Committees position was interpreted by many analysts as a ploy to gag Adeyemi and deprive him the opportunity and courage to expose the saga as he saw it. Adeyemi had earlier stated that he was never an impostor in handling the affairs of the PFIPC. He had also indicted several personalities, chiefly among them, the Chief of Staff to President Tinubu, Femi Gbajabiamila.
Adeyemi, on his part, vehemently rejected secret interrogation by the House Committee, insisting that he must be interrogated before the public as with other government officials.
Adeyemi, through his lawyer, Ademola Oyedokun, said on Wednesday, August 5, that he welcomed the House probe into the alleged establishment and operations of the PFIPC but opposed the committee’s plan to question him behind closed doors.
The lawyer argued that fairness demanded that Adeyemi be allowed to respond publicly to allegations already made against him during the committee’s open hearings.
“We have read that the committee intends to interview our client at an undisclosed date and place. We ask it, respectfully, to think again.
“Everyone else in this matter has been heard in public, and what has been said about our client was said in public. He should be allowed to answer in the same place it was said,” the statement read.
He called on the committee to invoke its constitutional powers under Section 89 of the Constitution to compel the police to produce Adeyemi at a public sitting.
“Section 89 of the Constitution gives the committee power to summon any person and to compel his attendance.
“We ask it to use that power and to require the police to produce our client at a public sitting.
“He will attend on any date it names, with his counsel, and answer every question put to him,” he said.
Oyedokun added that while the criminal allegations against Adeyemi would be addressed before the Federal High Court and relevant investigative agencies, the House inquiry into how the PFIPC came into existence and whether government officials acted upon it deserved to be conducted openly.
“Our client does not ask the committee to compromise any investigation. He will answer in public the questions this committee was constituted to ask, and will reserve, upon legal advice, any question touching a matter before a court or an agency.
“Those may be taken separately and in private. What cannot be right is that the whole of his account be taken behind a closed door because part of it is sensitive.
“We will not argue our client’s case in a press statement. The allegations are before the Federal High Court and before several agencies, and they will be answered there, on oath.
“But this committee is asking a different question: how this council came to exist, and who in government acted upon it.
“That question our client is anxious to answer, and Nigerians are entitled to hear it answered in public. We ask only that they remember, meanwhile, that no court has yet heard him say a single word,” he said.
Concluding its own investigation, the ICPC said it uncovered two more fake agencies operated by Adeyemi.
The ICPC Chairman, Dr. Musa Adamu Aliyu, SAN, disclosed this while briefing State House correspondents after he submitted the Commission’s interim report on the existence and operation of the alleged fake agency at the Presidential Villa, Abuja.
Dr. Aliyu said the investigation revealed that Adeyemi was never appointed by the Federal Government and that the PFIPC was never established by law or executive order.
According to the interim report, the appointment letter presented by Adeyemi was forged, while the PFIPC illegally appropriated offices and instruments from the former PEAC.
He said the fake agency, using the former PEAC office, engaged in false representation, widespread impersonation and various illegal activities that exploited weaknesses in verification and inter‑agency oversight.
He further stated that the investigation uncovered two additional fake government agencies: the FCT Investment Promotion Agency (PIFA) and the Foreign Investment Promotion Agency (FIPA).
“These agencies were created using forged legislative instruments and were used to open bank accounts for illegal activities,” he said.
The ICPC boss said Adeyemi changed the name of the fake agency from Foreign Investment Promotion Council to Foreign Intervention Promotion Council and attempted to expand its mandate to include revenue generation.
The ICPC boss said, “The investigation found no funds were approved or disbursed for the fake PFIPC/PEAC, and there were no weaknesses in the State House or CBN system.”
Some recommendations of the committee, which was given 30 days to unravel the mystery behind the existence of the fake agency, include prosecution of Mr. Adeyemi; imposing administrative sanctions on public officers who facilitated the illegal operations; and instituting reforms to improve internal controls
The public officers who were said to be collaborators are from the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the Accountant‑General’s Office, the Budget Office and the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA).
“The report is interim and the investigation continues to uncover more details to file criminal charges against Adeyemi and his collaborators,” he said.
Dr. Aliyu added that President Tinubu has taken note of the findings and has expressed his commitment to transparency and accountability in addressing the issue. But the question remains, what does Adeyemi have to say in all of these?
