PFIPC fake agency scanda
Adeniyi Adeyemi, the self-described Director-General of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, has rejected claims that he single-handedly created and operated the disputed federal agency.
Adeyemi, who is currently in police custody, alleged through his legal team that several federal ministries, departments and agencies processed documents, approved requests or maintained official relationships with the council over an extended period.
His lawyers named the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the Budget Office and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission among the institutions that allegedly interacted with the council.
The claims represent Adeyemi’s defence in the unfolding PFIPC fake agency scandal. They have not been independently established, and the institutions mentioned must be allowed to respond fully before conclusions are reached.
Adeyemi’s legal defence team, led by Festus Akhigbe, made the allegations in a statement issued on Sunday, August 2, 2026. The lawyers also demanded that their client be allowed to appear before the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the council.
Adeyemi Demands Appearance Before House Panel
The legal team asked the House committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, to secure the administrative approval required for Adeyemi to appear in person while in police custody.
His lawyers argued that the committee should not issue its final report without hearing directly from the man at the centre of the controversy.
They maintained that denying him an opportunity to testify would undermine the fairness and completeness of the legislative investigation.
The defence invoked the principle of audi alteram partem, meaning that every person affected by a proceeding should be given an opportunity to present his side.
This demand is central to the PFIPC fake agency scandal because Adeyemi’s evidence could help investigators determine whether the council was created entirely through forged documents or whether failures and approvals within government institutions gave it the appearance of legitimacy.
Allowing him to testify would not amount to accepting his claims. It would simply give lawmakers an opportunity to question him under formal proceedings, test his evidence and compare his account with documents submitted by public institutions.
Lawyers Reject ‘Lone Impostor’ Description
Adeyemi’s lawyers rejected what they described as an attempt to portray their client as an isolated impostor who independently invented a federal institution.
They argued that one individual could not have obtained office space, budget codes, banking facilities, personnel approvals and official recognition from several government institutions without assistance or serious failures within the public service.
According to the defence, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation acknowledged documents connected to the council and facilitated the allocation of office accommodation within the Federal Secretariat.
The lawyers further alleged that the Office of the Accountant-General and the Central Bank acted on official documentation to create administrative budget codes, grant self-accounting status and open operational accounts for the council.
These are significant allegations in the PFIPC fake agency scandal, but they remain claims by the defence. The existence of a bank account, official correspondence or an administrative code does not automatically establish that the council was lawfully created.
Investigators must examine who submitted each document, who approved it, whether signatures were genuine and whether the officials involved followed the required verification procedures.
Head of Service Office Named
Adeyemi’s lawyers also claimed that the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation approved an organisational structure and issued recruitment waivers that enabled the engagement of 314 personnel.
The Office of the Head of the Civil Service is responsible for processing recruitment-waiver requests from qualified MDAs under established public-service rules. Its own published description says such waivers are granted to institutions that satisfy applicable conditions.
The important question is whether the disputed council was properly verified before any request attributed to it was approved.
The Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack, reportedly told the House committee that her office failed to conduct adequate due diligence before approving recruitment requests linked to the council.
That admission widens the PFIPC fake agency scandal beyond Adeyemi’s personal conduct. It suggests that weaknesses in government verification procedures may have enabled a disputed institution to pass through parts of the federal bureaucracy.
However, administrative failure is not necessarily the same as criminal collaboration. The investigation must distinguish negligence, procedural error, document forgery and deliberate participation.
Defence Makes Claims Against EFCC
The legal team further alleged that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission allocated a property to the council, demanded a processing fee and presented a plaque of recognition to its leadership.
No independent official confirmation of those specific claims was available at the time of this report.
The EFCC, as Nigeria’s principal economic and financial crimes agency, should publicly explain whether it had any formal relationship with the council, whether a property was allocated and what verification took place before any alleged recognition.
The commission’s response is important because the PFIPC fake agency scandal raises questions about how institutions responsible for protecting the government from fraud authenticate organisations presenting themselves as presidential bodies.
If the defence possesses letters, payment receipts, allocation documents or photographs supporting its allegations, those materials should be submitted to the House committee and police investigators.
Public statements alone cannot replace documentary evidence.
https://ogelenews.ng/pfipc-fake-agency-scandal
Adeyemi Says He Is Being Scapegoated
Adeyemi’s lawyers accused the government of attempting to make their client a scapegoat for wider institutional failures.
They argued that it would be difficult for a private individual to mislead the SGF’s office, the civil service, the Accountant-General, the CBN, security agencies and the National Assembly at the same time without official assistance or significant procedural breakdowns.
The defence called for a broader investigation involving civil society organisations, legal experts and independent observers.
It also demanded a comprehensive audit of the paper trail across every public institution that processed requests connected to the council.
That request deserves serious consideration.
The investigation into the PFIPC fake agency scandal should not end with determining whether Adeyemi falsely presented himself as a director-general. It should establish how the council obtained documents, personnel, accounts, offices and access to senior public officials.
Government Agencies Must Produce Records
Every institution named in the controversy should submit its complete records to the House panel and investigating authorities.
The Office of the SGF should produce correspondence relating to the council and any documents used to justify the alleged office allocation.
The Accountant-General’s office should explain whether a budget or accounting code was created, the documents presented in support of the request and the officials who approved it.
The CBN should clarify whether accounts were opened directly with the bank or through another financial arrangement, and which verification procedures were followed.
The Office of the Head of Service should publish the recruitment-waiver requests, supporting documents and approval process, subject to lawful restrictions on personal information.
The Budget Office should disclose whether the council appeared in any federal budget proposal, appropriation document or government database.
The EFCC should respond to the property and plaque allegations.
These disclosures would help determine whether the PFIPC fake agency scandal arose from sophisticated forgery, bureaucratic negligence, insider collaboration or a combination of all three.
House Investigation Must Remain Independent
The House of Representatives committee has an important responsibility to conduct a transparent and non-partisan investigation.
Lawmakers must avoid turning the hearings into a television spectacle in which witnesses are condemned before evidence is fully examined.
Adeyemi should be allowed to testify, but he must also answer difficult questions.
He should explain the legal instrument that created the council, who appointed him, when he assumed office and how the institution obtained its operating funds.
He should provide the original letters, approvals and communications on which he relied.
He should also explain whether money was collected from investors, contractors, job applicants or other members of the public.
Government officials who processed the council’s requests should face the same level of scrutiny.
The investigation should follow documents and financial transactions rather than political influence.
Ogele News Perspective
The controversy surrounding the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council is bigger than one disputed director-general.
A government agency is not created merely because its name contains the word “Presidential,” because it occupies an office inside the Federal Secretariat or because officials exchange correspondence with it.
The legal instrument establishing the institution must exist. Its mandate, leadership, budget, reporting structure and staffing authority must also be verifiable.
If Adeyemi fabricated these foundations, he should face the full consequences of the law after a fair investigation and trial.
But if public officers ignored warning signs, approved unverified documents or helped the council obtain official recognition, they must also be held accountable.
The PFIPC fake agency scandal exposes the danger of a federal bureaucracy in which one approval is accepted as proof for another. Once the first institution fails to conduct proper checks, several others may continue processing requests based on the assumption that verification has already been completed.
Nigeria needs a central digital register of every legally established federal MDA. The register should identify the law or executive instrument creating each institution, its approved leadership, budget code, office address and supervisory ministry.
Before recruiting workers, opening public accounts, allocating government property or assigning budget codes, officials should be required to verify the institution through that register.
The House committee should publish its findings, identify every administrative failure and recommend sanctions where necessary.
The purpose of the investigation must not be to find a convenient individual to blame. It must reveal how the system failed and prevent another questionable organisation from operating under the authority of the Federal Government.
https://punchng.com/fake-agency-scandal-controversial-dg-fights-back-fingers-more-mdas/
