PFIPC fake agency probe
Pressure is mounting on the House of Representatives to invite the Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, Femi Gbajabiamila, before its ad hoc committee investigating the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.
Political parties, civil-society organisations and public-affairs analysts argue that Gbajabiamila’s appearance could help lawmakers establish how the disputed council allegedly gained access to government institutions, appeared in federal financial processes and secured recognition despite questions about its legal existence.
The growing calls represent a significant development in the PFIPC fake agency probe, which has generated public concern over possible weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation, appointment verification and financial-control systems.
The House committee, chaired by Plateau lawmaker Yusuf Gagdi, has already heard from senior government officials and directed the Inspector-General of Police to produce Adeniyi Adeyemi, the man who presented himself as the director-general of the disputed organisation.
Adeyemi is expected to answer questions about the origin, operations and funding of the council, as well as the circumstances under which it allegedly interacted with government agencies.
However, those demanding Gbajabiamila’s appearance insist that the investigation will remain incomplete unless every public official whose name or office features prominently in the controversy is given an opportunity to testify.
Calls for wider investigation
The pressure on the committee followed arguments that the PFIPC fake agency probe should examine more than the actions of Adeyemi.
Stakeholders quoted in the original report maintained that lawmakers must investigate the institutional chain through which the disputed organisation allegedly obtained office space, interacted with ministries and appeared in the 2026 federal budget.
They argued that focusing exclusively on the alleged promoter could leave important questions unanswered.
Among those supporting a wider inquiry are representatives of the African Democratic Congress, Labour Party, Social Democratic Party and civil-society organisations.
Their common position is that Gbajabiamila should be invited because Adeyemi made allegations directly involving the Chief of Staff.
An invitation would not amount to a declaration of guilt. It would allow Gbajabiamila to respond formally before the parliamentary panel and enable lawmakers to compare his testimony with documents and statements obtained from other witnesses.
The House is constitutionally empowered to investigate the administration of public funds and the activities of institutions executing federal laws and policies.
That authority must, however, be exercised fairly and without prejudging anyone mentioned during the proceedings.
What the committee is investigating
The House inaugurated its ad hoc committee after questions emerged about the legal status, funding and activities of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.
The investigation is expected to determine whether the council was created through any valid law, executive instrument or presidential approval.
It is also examining how the organisation allegedly found its way into the 2026 budget and whether funds were appropriated, released or requested in its name.
The committee is further expected to identify officials or institutions that processed documents connected to the disputed body.
These questions make the PFIPC fake agency probe an examination of institutional failure as much as an inquiry into the conduct of particular individuals.
If an organisation without legal standing penetrated the budget and administrative systems, lawmakers must determine which safeguards failed.
Every legitimate federal agency should have a traceable legal foundation, approved organisational structure, recognised leadership, budget classification and clearly defined supervisory ministry or authority.
A body lacking these features should ordinarily be detected before it can obtain office accommodation, open official-looking accounts or secure an appropriation.
Senior officials appear before lawmakers
The committee has begun questioning representatives of institutions connected to the controversy.
The Head of the Civil Service of the Federation and the Director-General of the Budget Office have appeared before the panel.
Representatives of the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Nigeria Police Force have also been associated with the inquiry.
Their appearances are important because each institution controls part of the administrative process that should prevent an unauthorised body from operating as a federal agency.
The Budget Office must establish how the council appeared in budget documentation and identify the submissions, approvals and officials involved.
The Accountant-General’s Office must explain whether any financial records, payment instructions or treasury entries were created for the organisation.
The Central Bank must clarify the circumstances surrounding any accounts allegedly connected to the council and the documentation used to establish them.
The PFIPC fake agency probe must follow these records from their point of origin to the final approval stage.
Verbal denials alone will not resolve the controversy. The committee needs appointment letters, budget submissions, account-opening documents, correspondence, electronic approval records and minutes of relevant meetings.
Police ordered to produce Adeyemi
The House committee directed the Inspector-General of Police to produce Adeyemi within 48 hours after he failed to appear before the panel.
Committee Chairman Yusuf Gagdi said Adeyemi’s testimony was necessary because of his central role in the controversy.
The lawmaker assured Nigerians that the panel would conduct a thorough and impartial investigation.
Adeyemi had described himself as the director-general of the council and made several allegations concerning how the organisation was established and the people allegedly involved in its activities.
Some of those claims are now subjects of investigations and legal disputes.
The police directive marks a critical stage in the PFIPC fake agency probe because Adeyemi may possess information about the documents, contacts and representations used to present the council as a government body.
Nevertheless, the authorities must respect his constitutional rights and the requirements of due process.
Producing him before the committee should not involve unlawful detention, intimidation or the punishment of relatives who have not been linked by evidence to any offence.
Gbajabiamila has appeared before ICPC
Gbajabiamila has already honoured an invitation from the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission.
The ICPC confirmed that he visited its Abuja headquarters on July 20, 2026, and gave a statement in connection with the ongoing investigation.
The anti-graft agency also corrected reports suggesting that the Chief of Staff had been arrested.
His lawyer said Gbajabiamila responded to questions and returned to his official duties after the engagement.
That appearance is relevant to the PFIPC fake agency probe, but it does not remove the House committee’s power to request his testimony.
The ICPC and the National Assembly perform different functions.
The ICPC investigates possible corruption-related offences and may recommend prosecution where sufficient evidence exists.
The House conducts legislative oversight, examines failures in government administration and may recommend changes to laws, procedures or institutional controls.
Gbajabiamila could therefore cooperate with both investigations without the processes necessarily duplicating each other.
Serious allegations require careful reporting
Adeyemi has made serious allegations involving the Chief of Staff, including claims concerning payments and demands linked to the disputed council.
Gbajabiamila has denied wrongdoing and taken legal action over statements he considers defamatory.
The Presidency has also rejected the council’s claim to official status and directed the ICPC to conduct a comprehensive investigation.
These claims must remain clearly attributed.
They should not be presented as established facts unless supported by documentary evidence and confirmed through a lawful investigative or judicial process.
The presumption of innocence applies to every person connected to the PFIPC fake agency probe.
At the same time, the seriousness of the allegations makes a transparent investigation necessary.
Shielding senior officials from legitimate questions would weaken public confidence. Conversely, treating allegations as proof before the investigation ends would undermine fairness and could prejudice court proceedings.
The proper response is to hear every relevant witness, examine the documents and publish findings supported by evidence.
https://ogelenews.ng/pfipc-probe-pressure-mounts-on-house-to-summon-gbaj…
Why Gbajabiamila’s testimony may matter
Those demanding Gbajabiamila’s appearance believe he is well placed to clarify whether his office had any official dealings with Adeyemi or the disputed council.
They want him to explain whether he knew about any appointment claim, funding request, office allocation or communication presented as having presidential approval.
His evidence could also help the committee establish whether documents allegedly bearing official authority were genuine, forged or issued without proper approval.
Gbajabiamila’s testimony would provide an opportunity to state his position directly and challenge any allegation he considers false.
For this reason, an invitation should not automatically be regarded as hostile.
Public officials routinely appear before parliamentary committees to explain administrative decisions.
A credible PFIPC fake agency probe should give the Chief of Staff the same opportunity afforded to other witnesses, particularly where his office is repeatedly mentioned in the controversy.
The committee should communicate any invitation formally, provide adequate notice and specify the issues on which clarification is required.
Senate takes different approach
While the House has proceeded with an investigation, the Senate has declined separate attempts to establish its own probe.
The upper chamber decided to defer to the ongoing ICPC investigation, arguing that a parallel legislative inquiry could interfere with the anti-corruption agency’s work.
The Senate rejected another attempt to reopen the matter on July 15.
That decision has produced two different approaches within the National Assembly.
The House believes legislative oversight can proceed alongside the ICPC investigation, while the Senate has preferred to wait for the anti-graft agency’s findings.
Both positions have defensible arguments.
Multiple investigations can uncover more information, but poorly coordinated inquiries can create conflicting demands, expose evidence prematurely or allow witnesses to tailor their statements.
The House should therefore coordinate responsibly with the ICPC while maintaining the independence of the PFIPC fake agency probe.
Sensitive criminal evidence should not be disclosed in a manner that compromises possible prosecution.
Budget system faces difficult questions
One of the most troubling aspects of the controversy is the allegation that the council appeared in the 2026 Appropriation Act despite the government disputing its legal existence.
Budget entries ordinarily pass through several stages before becoming part of an appropriation law.
An agency submits proposals, the responsible authorities review them, the executive includes approved provisions in the appropriation bill and the National Assembly examines the estimates before passage.
If the disputed council appeared in the final budget, investigators must determine who submitted its proposals and which officials validated the entry.
They must also establish whether lawmakers introduced, altered or retained the allocation during the budget process.
The PFIPC fake agency probe should not become an exercise in passing blame between the executive and legislature.
Both branches participated in producing the appropriation law and must account for any failures within their respective processes.
The incident demonstrates the need for a publicly accessible register of federal institutions showing each agency’s establishing law, supervising authority, leadership and approved budget code.
An automated verification system could prevent unrecognised bodies from being entered into budget software without confirmation from designated institutions.
Financial institutions must explain their safeguards
Questions have also been raised about accounts reportedly opened or operated in connection with the council.
Banks and public financial institutions are expected to conduct extensive verification before creating accounts for government bodies.
Required checks should ordinarily include the legal instrument establishing the organisation, tax and identification records, authorisation from recognised officials and confirmation of the signatories.
Where a disputed agency obtained access to official-looking accounts, investigators must determine whether documents were forged, verification was bypassed or officials failed to follow established procedures.
The PFIPC fake agency probe should identify individual and institutional responsibility rather than merely describe the lapse as an administrative error.
Weak verification systems expose Nigeria to fraud far beyond this particular controversy.
A determined group could use the identity of a government body to solicit investments, collect fees, award contracts or receive payments from unsuspecting individuals and companies.
The authorities must therefore examine whether anyone suffered financial loss after relying on the council’s claim to official status.
House must protect credibility of investigation
The committee’s credibility will depend on its willingness to question powerful and less influential witnesses with equal seriousness.
Inviting junior officials while avoiding individuals holding senior positions would create the impression of a selective investigation.
At the same time, the hearings must not become political theatre designed to embarrass officials before television cameras.
Witnesses should be questioned on documents, dates, approvals and specific administrative actions.
The committee should publish a clear record of invitations, appearances and unresolved requests.
It must also distinguish between confidential evidence and information that can safely be disclosed to the public.
At the end of the PFIPC fake agency probe, the House should release a comprehensive report identifying what happened, how it happened and what must change.
Any finding of possible criminal conduct should be forwarded to the appropriate law-enforcement agency.
Administrative failures should lead to disciplinary recommendations and reforms.
A test of public accountability
The PFIPC controversy has become a test of whether Nigeria’s institutions can investigate allegations reaching close to the Presidency without fear or political interference.
It is equally a test of whether public debate can respect due process while demanding accountability.
Gbajabiamila’s previous appearance before the ICPC demonstrates that senior officeholders can provide statements without such cooperation being interpreted as guilt.
An appearance before the House could similarly allow him to address the issues publicly and strengthen confidence in the inquiry.
The PFIPC fake agency probe should not be used to convict anyone through headlines. Neither should official status be used as protection from legitimate parliamentary questions.
Nigerians deserve to know how a disputed body allegedly entered the machinery of government and whether public money was exposed, committed or lost.
The answer will require more than political statements.
It will require documentary evidence, sworn testimony, institutional cooperation and an investigative report that follows the facts regardless of the people involved.
Pressure on the House to summon Gbajabiamila will therefore continue until the committee explains whether it considers his testimony necessary.
Whatever decision it takes, the panel must show that it is guided by evidence rather than political convenience.
Only a thorough, impartial and transparent inquiry can restore confidence and prevent another organisation of uncertain legal status from finding its way into Nigeria’s administrative and financial systems.
https://punchng.com/fake-agency-probe-house-faces-pressure-to-summon-gbajabiamila/
