PFIPC Scandal: CBN Admits Opening Dollar
Fresh details emerging from the House of Representatives investigation into the controversial Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council have deepened questions over how an organisation disowned by the Presidency gained access to Nigeria’s official financial and administrative systems.
The Central Bank of Nigeria told lawmakers that it created two foreign-currency domiciliary accounts, one denominated in United States dollars and the other in British pounds, for the controversial council in August 2025. The admission has added a significant institutional dimension to the PFIPC scandal, which has already raised questions about budget preparation, public-sector verification and internal controls across several government offices.
According to reports from the investigative hearing, the accounts were created following correspondence from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation. The CBN, however, maintained that the accounts were never funded, activated for transactions or made operational because the necessary documentation was not completed.
That distinction is important. Opening an account is not necessarily the same as operating it. Nevertheless, the fact that Nigeria’s apex bank created official foreign-currency account numbers for an organisation whose legal existence is now being challenged goes to the heart of the PFIPC scandal.
How the PFIPC accounts were created
Documents previously reviewed in connection with the controversy indicated that the Office of the Accountant-General wrote to the CBN on July 29, 2025, requesting the creation of four domiciliary accounts for two government bodies, including PFIPC. On August 13, 2025, the CBN reportedly confirmed that dollar and pound accounts had been created for the council.
The CBN’s appearance before the House committee has therefore provided official confirmation that the request reached the bank through an established government channel. The bank’s position is that it acted on correspondence received from the Accountant-General’s office, but stopped short of making the accounts operational when the required documentation was not supplied.
This raises a central question: what verification was conducted before the request was processed?
Government-related accounts are not ordinary retail accounts. They carry the appearance of state legitimacy and may be used in engagements with local institutions, foreign governments, investors and development partners. The creation of such accounts, even without funds, could give an unrecognised organisation a degree of official credibility.
That is why the PFIPC scandal cannot be treated solely as an allegation against one individual. It is also a test of the safeguards within the institutions that processed the organisation’s requests.
OAGF and CBN positions require reconciliation
Before the latest parliamentary hearing, the Office of the Accountant-General had said PFIPC possessed no operational account with the CBN and received no public funds. That statement was accurate in the limited sense that the accounts were reportedly inactive and unfunded. However, the CBN’s confirmation that two account numbers were created provides an important clarification to the earlier public denial.
The apparent contradiction may therefore be more about terminology than substance. The OAGF denied the existence of an operational account, while the CBN acknowledged creating accounts that never became operational.
Still, Nigerians deserve a full explanation of the processes followed by both institutions. The House committee should establish who initiated the request, which officers reviewed it, what supporting documents accompanied it and why the lack of legal establishment was not detected before account numbers were generated.
Without those answers, the PFIPC scandal will continue to fuel suspicions that Nigeria’s bureaucratic systems can be penetrated through official-looking letters and unverified claims.
From disputed council to federal budget
The banking revelations are only one part of a broader controversy. PFIPC also appeared in discussions surrounding an allocation of approximately ₦1.3 billion in the 2026 federal budget, despite the Presidency’s insistence that the council was not established by law or a valid executive instrument.
The House of Representatives opened an investigation to determine how the purported organisation entered the budget and whether established government procedures were compromised. The probe is examining the roles of relevant public institutions, including the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the OAGF, the CBN and officials connected with the budget process.
President Bola Tinubu also directed the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged fake agency and the disputed budgetary allocation. The commission was given 30 days to report its findings.
These parallel investigations have transformed the PFIPC scandal from a case of alleged impersonation into a wider inquiry about institutional accountability.
https://ogelenews.ng/pfipc-scandal
Questions over office space and official recognition
PFIPC reportedly operated from office space within the Federal Secretariat in Abuja. At the House hearing, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation explained that the space occupied by the council had originally been allocated to the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.
The revelation adds another layer to the controversy. Nigerians are asking how an organisation now described as fictitious obtained office space in the heart of the federal bureaucracy, corresponded with senior government institutions, appeared in budget records and secured CBN account numbers without its legal status being conclusively verified.
Each institution may argue that it acted on documents originating from another recognised public office. But that explanation points to the very weakness the investigation must address: a system in which one official letter may be accepted as sufficient proof by several agencies without independent verification.
The PFIPC scandal has exposed the dangers of fragmented responsibility. When every institution assumes that another has completed the necessary checks, a false or improperly constituted body may move through government channels with the appearance of legitimacy.
Allegations remain before the court
At the centre of the controversy is Adeniyi Adeyemi, who presented himself as the Director-General of PFIPC. The Presidency alleges that forged documents and official identities were used to mislead government institutions. Adeyemi has denied aspects of the accusations and has made counter-allegations concerning how the organisation was established and included in the federal budget.
The criminal allegations against him and others remain matters for the court to determine. Reporting on the PFIPC scandal must therefore distinguish between established institutional facts, disputed political claims and allegations that have not yet been proved in court.
What has now been officially acknowledged is that the CBN created two foreign-currency accounts for PFIPC, although the bank says the accounts were never funded or activated. The House committee must determine whether the creation of those accounts resulted from deception, negligence, procedural weakness or cooperation from insiders.
A warning for Nigeria’s public institutions
The most troubling feature of the PFIPC scandal is not merely that an individual may have presented an organisation as a government body. Fraudulent representations occur in many societies. The real concern is how far the disputed organisation travelled within Nigeria’s public system before serious questions were raised.
Effective public administration should not depend solely on seals, letterheads and reference numbers. A proposed agency should be traceable to an enabling law, a presidential instrument, an approved administrative structure and authenticated records held by the appropriate government offices.
The federal government needs a central digital register of all legally recognised ministries, departments, agencies, commissions, councils and presidential committees. Institutions such as the CBN, OAGF, Budget Office and Office of the Head of Service should be required to verify any organisation against that register before processing accounts, budget requests, payroll documentation or office allocations.
Officials who receive requests involving newly created public bodies should also be required to confirm their establishment directly with the originating authority instead of relying solely on forwarded correspondence.
Investigation must lead to accountability
The House investigation must go beyond public hearings and dramatic revelations. It should identify the precise administrative failures that allowed PFIPC to obtain markers of official recognition.
Where misconduct is established, the responsible officials should face appropriate disciplinary or legal consequences. Where the problem resulted from weak procedures, Parliament and the executive must introduce reforms that close the gaps.
The CBN’s admission has provided another important piece of the puzzle, but many questions remain unanswered. Who prepared the request for the domiciliary accounts? Who authenticated the organisation? Were the accounts reflected in internal government records? Could account numbers have been presented to third parties as evidence of federal recognition?
The credibility of the investigation will depend on whether it answers these questions with documentary evidence rather than political assurances.
Ultimately, the PFIPC scandal is about more than two inactive bank accounts or a disputed budget allocation. It concerns the integrity of Nigeria’s public institutions and the safeguards designed to protect the machinery of government from manipulation.
Nigerians should expect a transparent investigation, clear findings and reforms that make a repetition far more difficult. Anything less would leave the country with the uncomfortable impression that official legitimacy can be manufactured through paperwork and passed from one public institution to another without adequate scrutiny.
