morganable justice wAtch
The committee is investigating how the PFIPC allegedly secured office space within the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja and received a budgetary allocation of over N1.32bn in the 2026 Appropriation Act, despite claims that the body has no legal backing or statutory establishment
KaNo —
The House of Representatives of Nigeria Ad Hoc Committee probing the controversy surrounding the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) is yet to determine the venue for questioning the council’s self-acclaimed Director-General, Adeniyi Adeyemi, as the investigation continues to generate widespread public interest.
A source familiar with the committee’s proceedings disclosed that no final decision had been reached on where Adeyemi would appear before the panel, despite expectations that he would be questioned this week.
The committee is chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, who represents Kanke/Kanam/Pankshin Federal Constituency of Plateau State.
The development comes amid fresh conditions set by Adeyemi, who has insisted that his legal representatives and members of the media must be present before he submits himself to questioning by the lawmakers.
The demand is seen as part of efforts by the embattled figure to ensure transparency and protect his legal rights during the high-profile probe.
The committee is investigating how the PFIPC allegedly secured office space within the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja and received a budgetary allocation of over N1.32bn in the 2026 Appropriation Act, despite claims that the body has no legal backing or statutory establishment.
The controversy has sparked concerns about possible lapses in public financial management, due diligence failures within government institutions, and broader questions about accountability in the handling of public funds.
Adeyemi, who is currently in police custody over the matter, is expected to appear before the committee following a series of testimonies from top government officials.
When contacted, the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to comment publicly, confirmed that the committee had yet to agree on a location for the session. “No decision yet,” the source said in response to inquiries.
Committee Probe Senior Officials
The committee has already heard from several senior officials, including the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack; the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Tanimu Yakubu; and the Director of Banking Services at the Central Bank of Nigeria, Hamisu Abdullahi. Representatives of the Inspector-General of Police also testified before the panel.
Testimonies presented during the hearings reportedly raised serious questions about how Adeyemi allegedly presented himself as the head of the PFIPC and gained access to official government structures.
Lawmakers are said to be particularly concerned about how the council was able to operate within government circles and even secure budgetary allocations without clear legal status.
Although Adeyemi has expressed readiness to appear before the panel, his insistence on the presence of lawyers and journalists has sparked debate about the format of the hearing.
While legislative investigations are typically conducted in public, the committee is expected to determine the modalities for the session in due course.
CUPP Rejects ICPC Findings
Meanwhile, the Coalition of United Political Parties has rejected the findings of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission on the PFIPC controversy, describing the probe as inadequate and calling for a more comprehensive and transparent investigation.
In an interview, the spokesperson for the coalition, Agu Bryan, criticised the ICPC report, which reportedly cleared the Presidency of wrongdoing while indicting Adeyemi.
He argued that the findings failed to address key questions about how an allegedly non-existent agency could operate at such a high level within government structures.
“The ICPC probe of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council which exonerated the Presidency and indicted Adeniyi Adeyemi is nothing short of a charade,” Bryan said.
He questioned the plausibility of the narrative that Adeyemi acted alone, given the scale of activities attributed to the PFIPC, including securing office space, recruiting staff, and appearing in official government processes.
“As Nigerians, we know that someone could not have operated an alleged high-profile agency of such magnitude without enablers, either within the Presidency or across the government agencies involved,” he added.
These include the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Central Bank of Nigeria, and the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.
Bryan also referenced the testimony of Walson-Jack, who reportedly admitted that her office did not conduct adequate due diligence on some of the documents associated with the PFIPC, raising further concerns about institutional oversight failures.
Another major issue raised by the coalition is how the PFIPC allegedly made its way into the national budget. According to the ICPC’s findings, the agency had no legal foundation, yet it reportedly received a substantial allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
“The National Assembly, particularly the House of Representatives, which appropriated funds to an agency that, according to the investigation, never existed as a creation of law, also owes Nigerians an explanation,” Bryan said.
CUPP Calls For Relevant Investigation
He called on relevant authorities to disclose who processed the budget line attributed to the PFIPC and what verification mechanisms were applied before the allocation was approved.
The coalition also questioned reports that hundreds of staff were recruited under the council, asking how such large-scale operations could have taken place without scrutiny from relevant government bodies.
Bryan said this discovery should prompt investigators to examine the authenticity of other documents and correspondences used by Adeyemi in his dealings with government institutions.
“It is commendable that the House and the Police have established that the signature of the Chief of Staff to the President was allegedly forged. But that raises another critical question: how many other documents, official correspondences and signatures allegedly used by Adeyemi were also forged?” he asked.
He maintained that Nigerians deserve full disclosure of the extent of the alleged irregularities and whether officials responsible for verifying documents failed in their duties.
CUPP further emphasised the need for Adeyemi to be given a fair hearing before the House committee, noting that transparency in the proceedings would help establish the truth and identify any other individuals or institutions that may have been involved.
“Was Adeyemi given fair hearing thus far? Has he been given the privilege to appear before the Yusuf Gagdi-led Ad hoc Committee of the House of Representatives probing the matter to be interrogated and directly answer questions?” Bryan queried.
Invoking the legal principle nemo judex in causa sua, which stipulates that no one should be a judge in their own case, the coalition stressed the importance of an independent and transparent process.
As the investigation unfolds, analysts say the outcome of the probe could have far-reaching implications for governance, institutional accountability and public confidence in Nigeria’s public sector systems. The handling of the PFIPC controversy is also expected to test the effectiveness of oversight mechanisms within the country’s legislative and anti-corruption frameworks.
With Adeyemi’s appearance before the committee anticipated in the coming days, attention remains focused on how the lawmakers will navigate the legal, political and institutional complexities surrounding one of the most contentious public accountability cases in recent times.
