PFIPC scandal takes new twist as Adeyemi alleges institutional complicity

The controversy surrounding the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) has taken a fresh turn, with the detained self-acclaimed Director-General of the council, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, asking the House of Representatives to facilitate his appearance before its investigative panel, arguing that any report produced without his testimony would be incomplete and constitutionally defective.

In a statement issued on Sunday through his legal team led by lawyer Festus Akhigbe, Adeyemi maintained that he is being unfairly portrayed as the sole architect of what investigators have described as a questionable federal agency, insisting that documentary evidence points to the involvement of multiple government institutions in recognising and processing the council’s operations.

The development comes as the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee continues its probe into the legality of the PFIPC and the N1.302 billion appropriated for the council in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

Request to Appear Before Investigators

Adeyemi, who is currently being held in custody under a court order, urged the committee chaired by Hon. Yusuf Gagdi to obtain the necessary administrative clearance to enable him testify in person.

His request follows last week’s investigative hearing during which the Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, represented by Deputy Inspector-General Tunji Disu, declined the committee’s request to produce Adeyemi, explaining that the suspect remained in lawful custody pursuant to a court order.

The committee had earlier directed the police to produce him as part of its ongoing investigation into the controversial agency.

Rejecting allegations that he single-handedly fabricated a federal government institution, Adeyemi’s legal team argued that the administrative records surrounding the PFIPC tell a more complex story.

According to the statement, it would have been practically impossible for one individual acting alone to obtain official recognition, budgetary allocations, personnel approvals and institutional cooperation from several arms of government.

“The administrative footprints of the PFIPC indicate a story entirely different from the narrative currently being presented,” the lawyers stated.

READ ALSO; The PFIPC affair: Inside the anti-corruption probe shaking the presidency

They argued that the investigation should not focus solely on Adeyemi but also examine the actions of public institutions whose decisions allegedly legitimised the council.

Institutions Named

The legal team listed several federal institutions it claimed processed official documents relating to the PFIPC.

According to the statement, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF) allegedly acknowledged documentation relating to the council and facilitated office accommodation within the Federal Secretariat Complex.

The lawyers questioned how government administrative machinery could have acted on the documents if they were entirely fraudulent.

They further alleged that the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) approved administrative budget codes, granted self-accounting status, posted civil servants to the council and facilitated the opening of operational accounts.

The statement also claimed that the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (OHCSF) approved the organisational structure of the council and granted waivers that enabled the recruitment of 314 personnel.

Perhaps most significantly, Adeyemi’s lawyers pointed to the inclusion of N1.302 billion for the PFIPC in the 2026 Appropriation Act, arguing that the appropriation underwent scrutiny by the Budget Office and both chambers of the National Assembly before receiving presidential assent.

The legal team further alleged that senior officials of security agencies attended programmes organised by the council and claimed that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) allocated office space to the organisation, requested a N300 million processing fee and presented an official plaque of recognition to its leadership.

These allegations have not been independently verified, and the agencies mentioned have not publicly responded to the specific claims.

Allegation of Scapegoating

Adeyemi’s lawyers argued that their client is being used as a scapegoat to shield systemic failures within government institutions.

READ ALSO; ₦1.3bn PFIPC Scandal: Court trial, budget controversy deepen mystery over alleged fake presidential agency

According to them, the investigation should determine whether administrative lapses, procedural failures or internal approvals within the federal bureaucracy contributed to the emergence and operation of the PFIPC.

“It is an administrative impossibility for an unassisted individual to mislead multiple agencies of the Federal Government,” the statement said.

The legal team maintained that excluding Adeyemi from the legislative inquiry would violate his constitutional right to fair hearing.

Demand for Fair Hearing

Citing the legal principle of audi alteram partem—which guarantees every person the right to be heard before a decision affecting them is reached—the lawyers urged the House committee not to conclude its investigation without hearing directly from their client.

They warned that any legislative report produced without Adeyemi’s testimony would be “fundamentally flawed, incomplete and a breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing.”

The lawyers insisted that a credible investigation requires lawmakers to examine not only officials from government institutions but also the individual at the centre of the controversy.

Investigation Continues

The House of Representatives launched the investigation following public concerns over the legal status of the PFIPC and the circumstances under which the council secured N1.302 billion in the 2026 national budget.

The probe is expected to establish whether the council was lawfully created, identify officials who approved its administrative processes and determine whether public funds were appropriated in violation of established government procedures.

With Adeyemi now demanding an opportunity to testify, the investigation has entered a critical phase that could determine whether responsibility rests solely on an individual or extends to wider institutional failures within Nigeria’s public administration.