Morganable News/Public Interest
The probe into the controversial council has drawn national attention following allegations that it operated without proper legal backing while engaging with key government institutions
kaNo —
The controversy surrounding the alleged establishment of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) deepened on Sunday as its self-acclaimed Director-General, Adeniyi Adeyemi, denied wrongdoing and accused multiple government institutions of validating the existence of the disputed agency.
Adeyemi, who is currently in police custody, made the claims through his legal team in a statement signed by Festus Akhigbe.
He insisted that he could not have single-handedly fabricated a federal agency, alleging that several ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) processed, recognised, and interacted with the council over time.
The defence team also demanded that Adeyemi be allowed to testify before the House of Representatives ad hoc committee probing the PFIPC, warning that any report produced without hearing from him would violate his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
“We formally request that the panel issue the necessary administrative clearance to allow our client, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, to appear in person and testify,” the statement read.
“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 a fair hearing.”
The probe into the controversial council has drawn national attention following allegations that it operated without proper legal backing while engaging with key government institutions.
Defence Team Rejects Attempts To Victimize Adeyemi
However, Adeyemi’s defence team rejected attempts to portray him as “an isolated, mastermind impostor.”
It further alleged that other critical government bodies took administrative actions that effectively legitimised the council’s operations.
Among those mentioned were the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and the Central Bank of Nigeria, which the defence claimed issued budget codes, granted self-accounting status, deployed civil servants, and opened operational accounts based on official documentation submitted by the council.
The legal team also pointed to the role of the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, alleging that it approved the council’s organisational structure and granted waivers that enabled the recruitment of over 300 personnel.
EFCC Allocates Property To Fake Agency
They also alleged that heads of security agencies attended programmes organised by the council, further suggesting institutional engagement.
“If the SGF, the Accountant-General, the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Head of Service, the Budget Office, the EFCC, the National Assembly, and the heads of Nigeria’s primary security architecture all verified, processed, funded, and officially interacted with this agency over an extended period, how can a single citizen be held uniquely responsible?” the statement queried.
It described the situation as “an administrative impossibility” without high-level institutional involvement and called for a broader, independent investigation into all MDAs connected to the council.
“We reiterate our call for a truly comprehensive, multi-stakeholder panel that includes civil society, legal experts, and independent observers to audit the complete paper trail across all involved ministries, departments, and agencies,” the statement added.
Adeyemi, Gbajabiamila May Not Appear Before Committee
Meanwhile, the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the PFIPC has indicated that it may conclude its inquiry without taking testimony from Adeyemi and other key figures, including the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila.
The committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, said it would rely on documentary evidence gathered over several weeks, as well as reports from security agencies, before presenting its preliminary findings.
This development has raised concerns among legal observers about due process, particularly in light of the defence team’s insistence on Adeyemi’s right to be heard.
HoS Admits Failure To Conduct Due Diligence
During one of the committee’s hearings, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack, admitted that her office failed to conduct adequate due diligence before approving recruitment requests linked to the council.
The admission has further fuelled concerns about systemic weaknesses in administrative processes within government institutions, with analysts warning that such lapses could enable the proliferation of unauthorised entities.
The committee is also expected to consider findings from ongoing investigations by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, which was directed by President Bola Tinubu to probe the matter.
The PFIPC controversy has sparked broader debate about governance, accountability, and institutional oversight within Nigeria’s public sector.
Critics argue that if the allegations made by Adeyemi’s defence are substantiated, they could point to deeper structural failures across multiple arms of government.
Others, however, caution that the claims must be carefully scrutinised to determine their credibility, noting that the existence of administrative interactions does not necessarily validate the legal status of an organisation.
As the House committee prepares to release its findings, stakeholders are closely watching whether the investigation will address both individual accountability and potential institutional complicity.
For now, the case remains a test of Nigeria’s commitment to transparency and due process, as well as the ability of its institutions to detect and prevent irregularities within the system.
