Shola Akinyele
The controversy surrounding the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has deepened, with Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, demanding an independent investigation into how an agency declared non-existent by the Presidency allegedly secured government office space, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) accounts, hundreds of civil servants and billions of naira in budget allocations.
The scandal first came into public focus on June 11, 2026, when the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, issued a disclaimer distancing the Presidency from the PFIPC and its purported Director-General, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew. According to the Presidency, no such council was ever created, while Adeyemi was described as an impostor. He was subsequently arraigned before the Federal High Court on charges bordering on forgery, impersonation and obtaining money by false pretence.
Gbajabiamila has maintained that he first became aware of the alleged fraud in October 2025 after forged appointment letters surfaced. He said he immediately alerted security agencies and presented himself as the whistleblower who exposed the scheme.
Adeyemi, however, has denied the allegations against him, claiming that Gbajabiamila personally issued his appointment letter and allegedly received ₦400 million through a proxy to facilitate the appointment before demanding an additional ₦200 million. He has called on President Bola Tinubu to establish an independent panel to investigate the matter, insisting that those currently investigating him are among the officials he has accused.
The conflicting accounts have fueled demands for a broader probe, with Falana arguing that the institutional footprint allegedly left by the PFIPC cannot be explained by the actions of a single individual.
Falana questioned how an agency that the Presidency insists never existed allegedly appeared in the 2026 Appropriation Act with reports indicating allocations ranging from ₦1.3 billion to as much as ₦24 billion. He argued that appropriation bills originate from the Executive before passing through the Budget Office, the Ministry of Finance and the National Assembly, making it difficult for a fictitious agency to appear in the national budget without official involvement.
He also asked how the organisation reportedly secured office accommodation within the Federal Secretariat in Abuja, noting that such allocations require official government approval. Falana further questioned how the alleged agency was able to open accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria, a process that ordinarily requires extensive government documentation and regulatory approvals.
The senior lawyer equally demanded explanations over reports that about 300 civil servants were posted to the PFIPC by the Office of the Head of Service, with their salaries allegedly processed through government payroll systems. He also queried how foreign diplomatic missions reportedly engaged with the council if it had no legal existence.
According to Falana, these developments suggest institutional involvement rather than the actions of a lone fraudster.
“If this is a conman that can con the Presidency into issuing a letter, con the Central Bank into opening accounts, con the National Assembly into inserting the agency into the budget, I think the government is kidding,” Falana was quoted as saying.
Calls for a comprehensive investigation have continued to gather momentum from civil society organisations, opposition politicians, human rights groups and budget transparency advocates, who argue that the official explanation does not adequately address questions surrounding the reported budget allocation, CBN accounts, office space, staffing and interactions with foreign missions.
Observers say any credible investigation would likely focus on official budget records, CBN account-opening documents, civil service posting records and correspondence relating to the alleged establishment and operation of the PFIPC. They argue that such documentary evidence would help determine whether the approvals were genuine, forged or facilitated by insiders.
While the Presidency has maintained that Adeyemi is merely an alleged impostor attempting to divert attention from his criminal trial, critics insist that dismissing the allegations against him does not answer the broader institutional questions raised by the controversy.
As public scrutiny intensifies, pressure continues to mount on the Federal Government to provide clear explanations over how a body it says never existed allegedly operated across multiple government institutions with office space, staff, budget allocations, banking facilities and engagements with foreign missions. The Presidency has yet to announce an independent panel to investigate the wider issues beyond the ongoing criminal proceedings against Adeyemi.
Follow Us on Social Media
WhatsApp us
Comments