The House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the activities of the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has cleared President Bola Tinubu’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, of involvement in the establishment or operation of the organisation.
The committee said its preliminary investigation found no evidence that Gbajabiamila authorised, approved, established or participated in the activities of the purported agency. Committee Chairman Yusuf Gagdi disclosed the findings on Wednesday while presenting the panel’s preliminary report in Abuja.
According to the lawmakers, a letter purportedly appointing Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi as Director-General of the PFIPC and allegedly bearing Gbajabiamila’s authority and signature was fabricated.
The committee said State House records showed that Gbajabiamila neither issued nor signed the letter, while the letterhead and reference number used did not conform to official presidential correspondence.
Rather than finding evidence connecting the Chief of Staff to the purported organisation, the panel said documentary evidence indicated that he took steps to trigger investigations after concerns about the organisation were brought to his attention.
Gagdi said the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission had alerted Gbajabiamila over suspected fraudulent activities and alleged misuse of institutional materials. The Chief of Staff, according to the panel, responded within one day by contacting the Nigeria Police Force, the Department of State Services, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Office of the National Security Adviser.
The committee therefore preliminarily commended Gbajabiamila for what it described as timely security and administrative interventions. However, Gagdi stressed that the findings were preliminary and did not represent the final decision of the House.
The panel also concluded that there was no valid Act of the National Assembly, presidential executive order or other lawful instrument establishing the PFIPC. It said documents presented as an executive order and an Act of Parliament had been found to be unauthentic.
One of the documents examined was a purported Presidential Executive Order No. 5 dated February 24, 2026. The committee said available evidence indicated that the document was neither issued nor approved through the lawful processes of the Presidency. It similarly found that a document presented as an Act establishing the organisation had not been passed by both chambers of the National Assembly, assented to by the President or gazetted as an Act of the Federation.
The investigation further uncovered a letter dated November 7, 2024, purportedly emanating from the State House and requesting an administrative code for the PFIPC. The letter allegedly carried the name of an official and a directorate that, according to the panel, did not exist in the form represented.
Beyond the disputed documents, the committee said preliminary financial information showed that about 58 bank accounts were linked through identifying details associated with Adeyemi. More than 30 of the accounts were apparently operated in the names of about nine agencies, companies, foundations or related entities, while the panel said Adeyemi could be connected directly or indirectly to more than 12 entities.
The lawmakers stressed, however, that the existence of the accounts or their association with Adeyemi did not by itself establish that every account, entity or transaction was unlawful. They said further work would focus on reconciling ownership records, identifying account operators and beneficial owners, and examining relevant financial transactions.
The panel is also investigating an alleged N400 million transaction involving a company that reportedly claimed it was induced to make payments in connection with a purported contract to renovate, furnish or improve a residence allegedly presented as Adeyemi’s official accommodation.
The committee said it was tracing the payment destinations and investigating whether any public officer or other person participated in, facilitated or benefited from the transaction. Criminal responsibility, however, remains a matter for the appropriate investigative and judicial processes.
The investigation also found that about 39 people were allegedly presented or paraded as employees of the purported organisation. The committee said it would examine their recruitment, appointment documents, salaries and allowances and determine the circumstances surrounding their involvement, including distinguishing people who may have been deceived from those who knowingly participated in the alleged scheme.
The purported PFIPC also reportedly secured office space within the Federal Secretariat Complex and presented itself as a legitimate government institution. The committee said the organisation obtained government facilities and other privileges through documents it described as forged or fraudulent.
The controversy surrounding PFIPC became public after the purported agency appeared in Nigeria’s 2026 Federal Government budget despite questions over its legal status. The development prompted the House to launch an investigation into how an organisation that the Presidency later disowned could obtain recognition within government structures.
With the preliminary findings, the committee has shifted attention from the alleged involvement of Gbajabiamila to the wider question of how forged documents and a purported government agency were able to gain access to public institutions, facilities and financial processes.
The panel said its investigation is not yet complete and that outstanding inquiries, including the tracing of financial transactions and identification of persons who may have facilitated the activities, would continue before a final report is submitted to the House.
No comments:
Post a Comment