The House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee investigating the alleged inclusion of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) in the Federal Budget Framework has cleared the Chief of Staff to the President, Mr Femi Gbajabiamila of any involvement in the activities of the organisation.
The committee said its preliminary investigation found that PFIPC had no legal backing, as it found no law, Executive Order or presidential approval establishing the organisation.
Chairman of the committee, Mr Yusuf Gagdi, disclosed this while presenting the panel’s preliminary findings at a press conference in Abuja.
The investigation followed a House resolution of July 8, 2026, directing the committee to examine the circumstances surrounding the emergence of PFIPC and its alleged inclusion in the Federal Budget Framework.
According to Gagdi, “the committee found no valid Act of the National Assembly, gazetted enactment, Presidential Executive Order or other lawful instrument establishing PFIPC.”
He said; “no competent government authority had produced an authentic record showing that the organisation was created, approved or authorised by President Bola Tinubu, the Federal Executive Council, the National Assembly, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation or any other legally empowered institution.”
The committee also found that the organisation operated under inconsistent names, including the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council and Presidential Economic Advisory Council.
A major finding of the investigation concerned a document purporting to appoint Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi as Director-General of the organisation.
Gagdi said; “evidence obtained from the State House established that no such appointment was made or approved by the Presidency.”
He said Gbajabiamila neither issued nor signed the letter, while the letterhead was not authentic State House letterhead and its reference number was inconsistent with the official referencing system.
“The Committee therefore preliminarily finds that the purported appointment letter was fabricated and falsely attributed to the Presidency,” Gagdi said.
The committee also said documentary evidence showed that Gbajabiamila had acted against the purported organisation when concerns about PFIPC were brought to his attention by the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission over suspected fraudulent activities and misuse of institutional materials.
According to Gagdi, “Gbajabiamila responded within one day by contacting relevant security and investigative agencies, including the Nigeria Police Force, Office of the National Security Adviser, Department of State Services and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.”
He said the Chief of Staff also initiated administrative verification through relevant government institutions.
“The documentary evidence presently before the Committee does not establish that the Chief of Staff authorised, approved, established or participated in the activities of the purported organisation.
“On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates repeated steps to secure investigation, institutional verification and appropriate administrative action,” the committee said.
The panel consequently commended Gbajabiamila for timely security and administrative interventions.
The committee further said it uncovered a document presented as Presidential Executive Order No. 5 of February 24, 2026, which was allegedly used to provide legal backing for PFIPC.
Gagdi said; “available evidence indicated that the document was neither issued nor approved through lawful presidential processes.”
The panel examined a document presented as an Act of the National Assembly establishing the organisation, but found that it was never passed by both chambers, assented to by the President or gazetted as an Act of the Federation.
According to the committee, “portions of a document relating to another institution appeared to have been electronically altered to create the impression that Parliament had enacted legislation establishing PFIPC.”
The committee also uncovered a letter dated November 7, 2024, purportedly emanating from the State House and requesting the creation of an administrative code for PFIPC.
However, State House evidence, according to the panel, showed that the purported office and directorate did not exist in the stated form and that no State House officer known as Akambi Adewale served in the claimed capacity.
Beyond PFIPC, the committee said its investigation had identified a wider network of entities and financial accounts linked through identifying information associated with Adeyemi, also referred to in some records as Adeyemi Matthew.
Gagdi said; “preliminary financial information indicated that about 58 bank accounts were linked through the relevant identifying information, with more than 30 accounts apparently operated in the names of about nine agencies, companies, foundations or related entities.”
He stressed, however, that the committee had not concluded that every account, entity or transaction was unlawful.
Another major aspect of the probe is an alleged N400 million transaction.
The committee said; “a company alleged that Adeyemi induced it to make the payment in four instalments after representing that it would receive a contract involving the renovation, furnishing or improvement of a residence purportedly allocated to him as Director-General of PFIPC.”
Gagdi said the committee was tracing the payment destinations, identifying account holders and beneficial owners, and verifying the ownership and status of the property.
He said the investigation would also determine whether any public officer or other person participated in, facilitated or benefited from the transaction.
The panel said “approximately 39 people were paraded or represented as employees of the purported organisation and was investigating their recruitment, appointment letters, salaries and allegations that some persons paid money as a condition for employment.”
The committee further found that PFIPC occupied office accommodation within the Federal Secretariat Complex without lawful allocation from the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.
Gagdi stressed that the findings remained preliminary and did not amount to a final determination of criminal guilt.
The committee called on security and anti-corruption agencies to conclude their investigations, preserve relevant evidence, trace suspected proceeds and prosecute anyone against whom sufficient admissible evidence is established.
It also recommended enhanced verification procedures for the creation of new government institutions, administrative and budget codes, presidential correspondence and appointments.
The committee said t would continue its investigation before submitting its final report to the House, stressing that the report would contain definitive findings on individual and institutional responsibility.
It also recommended that government ministries, departments and agencies stop dealing with PFIPC.
