The House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee investigating the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has traced about 58 bank accounts to Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi.
Preliminary evidence indicates that more than 30 were operated in the names of about nine agencies, companies, foundations and related entities.
The committee also identified more than 12 organisations and entities allegedly linked, directly or indirectly, to Adeyemi, raising concerns over what it described as a possible network of organisations operating under governmental, international, investment, educational, charitable, foundation and United Nations-related identities.
Chairman of the Committee, Yusuf Adamu Gagdi, disclosed this yesterday in Abuja while presenting the panel’s preliminary findings on its investigation into the purported PFIPC and its alleged inclusion in the Federal Budget Framework.
According to Gagdi, information obtained from financial and investigative institutions showed that the Bank Verification Number (BVN) and other identifying details associated with Adeyemi were linked to a substantial network of personal, corporate, organisational and foundation accounts.
He listed entities associated with the records as the Confederation of United Nations Youths; FCT Investment Promotion Agency and Public-Private Partnership; FCT Investment Promotion Council and Public-Private Partnership; Foreign Investment Promotion Agency; United Nations Youth Global Agency; United Nations Youth Global Foundation; World United Nations Youth Global Foundation; World Entrepreneurship University Limited; World Enterprise University Limited; FCT Investment Promotion Act; FCT Promotion Agency; and Olubadan of Ibadan Foundation.
Gagdi said some of the entities appeared to have multiple accounts, while other accounts were operated in personal or variant names.
He, however, stressed that the Committee had not concluded that every identified account, entity or transaction was unlawful.
‘The Committee is reconciling registration records, account mandates, beneficial ownership information, signatories and transaction histories to determine the true nature and control of the identified entities and accounts,’ he said.
The Committee, he added, was particularly concerned by similarities in the nomenclature, objectives, management structures, signatories and bank-account relationships of the entities.
Gagdi said preliminary evidence suggested that Adeyemi might have been connected, directly or indirectly, with more than 12 such entities.
The Committee is investigating whether the entities were conceived or deployed to create artificial credibility, solicit funds, obtain investments, procure official recognition, secure government facilities or induce members of the public to part with money.
The chairman also disclosed that the Committee had met Adeyemi behind closed doors during the investigation but did not reveal details of the engagement.
He said Adeyemi could not be brought before the Committee because of a court order keeping him in police custody.
The Committee was constituted by the House following the adoption of Resolution No. 68/07/2026 on July 8, 2026.
The House acted pursuant to its constitutional powers of appropriation, oversight and investigation after considering reports concerning the purported establishment, operation and inclusion of the PFIPC in the Federal Budget Framework.
The investigation was considered of grave national importance because it touched on the sanctity of the Federal Budget Process, public finance administration, the security of official government documents, the reputation of the Presidency and other institutions of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The Committee was mandated to establish the legal status of the purported organisation, determine how it appeared in the Federal Budget Framework, ascertain whether any appropriation, warrant, cash backing or financial release was made in its favour, identify persons and institutions connected with its activities and determine whether institutional or administrative breaches occurred.
Gagdi stressed that the findings presented to journalists were preliminary and based on oral testimony, documentary evidence, financial records and submissions received so far.
‘They do not constitute the final report of the Committee or represent the final decision of the House of Representatives,’ he said.
PFIPC not established by law
The Committee said it found no valid Act of the National Assembly, gazetted enactment, Presidential Executive Order, administrative instrument or other lawful authority establishing an institution known as the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council.
According to Gagdi, no competent Federal Government authority produced an authentic record showing that the organisation was created, approved or authorised by the President, Federal Executive Council, National Assembly, Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation or any other authority empowered by law.
The organisation, he said, also operated under inconsistent descriptions, including the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council and Presidential Economic Advisory Council.
He said the inconsistencies, considered alongside the documentary evidence before the Committee, substantially undermined any claim that the entity possessed lawful governmental status.
‘Appointment letter’ allegedly forged
The Committee also examined a document purporting to appoint Adeyemi as Director-General of the organisation.
The document was presented as an official communication from the Presidency and purportedly bore the authority and signature of the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila.
Gagdi said evidence obtained from the State House established that no such appointment was made or approved by the Presidency.
The Chief of Staff, he said, neither issued nor signed the letter, while the letterhead was not an authentic State House letterhead.
The purported reference number was also inconsistent with the State House’s official referencing system, while the format, language and administrative features differed materially from official correspondence.
‘The Committee therefore preliminarily finds that the purported appointment letter was fabricated and falsely attributed to the Presidency,’ Gagdi said.
He said any deliberate creation or deployment of a document purporting to show that the President or Chief of Staff had authorised the appointment of an individual to head a non-existent federal institution would constitute a grave matter if established through the criminal process.
Purported Executive Order
The Committee also examined a document described as Presidential Executive Order No. 5 of February 24, 2026, which was represented as presidential authority for establishing or operating the organisation.
Gagdi said available evidence indicated that the document was not an authentic Executive Order of the President and was neither issued nor approved through lawful presidential processes.
He described the alleged fabrication of an instrument represented to the public as an Executive Order as exceptionally serious.
‘An Executive Order carries the authority of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,’ he said.
Any attempt to manufacture such an instrument to procure official recognition, financial advantage or public confidence, he added, struck at the foundation of lawful executive authority.
‘Act of National Assembly’ allegedly mutilated
The Committee examined a document presented as an Act of the National Assembly establishing the purported organisation.
Gagdi said preliminary examination showed that the document was never enacted by the National Assembly, passed by both chambers, assented to by the President or gazetted as an Act of the Federation.
He said the document did not conform with the established structure, numbering, certification and publication characteristics of an authentic Act.
Portions of an instrument relating to another institution, he added, appeared to have been electronically altered, mutilated or substituted to create the impression that Parliament had enacted legislation establishing the purported Presidential Economic Advisory Council or PFIPC.
‘No individual, organisation or group has the lawful authority to manufacture legislative authority by editing, mutilating, substituting or fabricating a document and presenting it as an enactment of Parliament,’ Gagdi said.
He said the matter would be treated with the seriousness it deserved because the integrity of the National Assembly and the credibility of the Laws of the Federation could not be allowed to become instruments of private deception.
Forged request sent to Accountant-General
The Committee also uncovered a letter dated November 7, 2024, purportedly emanating from the State House and addressed to the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, requesting the creation or issuance of an administrative code for the PFIPC.
The letter was purportedly signed by one Akambi Adewale, described as ‘Director, Administration and Support Services’, for the Permanent Secretary.
According to Gagdi, evidence from the State House established that the office represented in the document did not exist in the stated form.
No State House officer known as Akambi Adewale, he said, served in the purported capacity, while the letter was neither issued nor authorised by the State House.
The Committee therefore preliminarily found that fictitious names, offices and official designations were deployed in an attempt to mislead an important Federal Government financial institution.
Accountant-General’s office under scrutiny
The Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation confirmed that its response to the purported State House request was authentic, although the request prompting it was forged.
The office also acknowledged that its response ought not to have been released to Adeyemi or any other unauthorised person but should have been transmitted through a properly authenticated official channel.
Gagdi said the Committee considered it a serious administrative and security lapse that official correspondence addressed to the State House could allegedly have been collected by a person connected with the forged request.
The Committee is investigating whether the lapse resulted from negligence, failure to observe verification requirements, breach of correspondence procedures, wilful disregard of due process or deliberate facilitation.
He stressed that no officer would be condemned without fair hearing.
Budget Office, SGF officials under investigation
The Budget Office made extensive submissions on its interaction with the purported organisation.
Gagdi said the Committee was reviewing correspondence, electronic records, approvals and other actions to establish whether the alleged recognition of the organisation within the Federal Budget Framework resulted from administrative weakness, negligence, circumvention of procedure, unauthorised facilitation or active complicity.
The Committee also expressed concern over the failure or refusal of some officials of the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) to honour parliamentary invitations or fully respond to requests for information.
Evidence before the panel, Gagdi said, suggested that a senior official might have directed that invitations issued by the Committee should not be honoured.
‘No public officer is entitled to treat a lawful parliamentary investigation with contempt or deliberate obstruction,’ he said.
The affected officials, he added, would be given a final opportunity to respond before definitive findings and recommendations were made.
Unauthorised occupation of Federal Secretariat
The Committee said evidence from the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation showed that accommodation occupied by the purported organisation within the Federal Secretariat Complex was not allocated to it by the Office.
Preliminary evidence indicated that part of office accommodation previously allocated to the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation was subsequently made available to the purported organisation by some officers without lawful authority.
Gagdi said the occupation of Federal Secretariat accommodation was significant because it strengthened the organisation’s ability to portray itself as a legitimate government agency.
The Committee is identifying the officers responsible for the transfer or occupation of the facility.
39 persons represented as employees
The Committee said about 39 people were represented or paraded as employees of the purported organisation across junior, intermediate and senior cadres.
It is investigating their recruitment, appointment letters and identity cards, payment of salaries or allowances, alleged collection of money as a condition for employment and the functions they performed.
Gagdi said the Committee would distinguish between persons who may themselves have been deceived and those who knowingly participated in or benefited from the activities under investigation.
Number plates, digital identity
The Committee also found evidence suggesting that misleading or fabricated documents were presented to the Federal Road Safety Corps, resulting in the processing or approval of special number plates for vehicles associated with the organisation.
It is reviewing the applications, supporting documents and approvals to establish responsibility.
The use of official-looking number plates, Gagdi said, could reinforce the impression that the organisation had governmental authority.
The organisation also maintained a public and digital identity presenting itself as a Federal Government agency, complete with a purported vision, mission, governing structure and staff hierarchy.
The Committee said such representations were capable of deceiving government institutions, investors, private organisations, purported employees and members of the public.
President, officials allegedly listed without consent
The purported organisation also presented President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as chairman of its Governing Council and published the names, offices and, in some cases, photographs of senior public officials as members.
Those listed allegedly included the SGF, Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, ministers and other senior officials.
Gagdi said the Committee had received no evidence that the President or the affected officials accepted such appointments, consented to serve on the purported council, authorised the appointments or were even aware of them.
‘The Presidency and public institutions of the Federal Republic of Nigeria cannot be reduced to instruments for private misrepresentation or commercial deception,’ he said.
Committee clears Chief of Staff
The Committee commended Gbajabiamila, saying evidence before it did not establish that he authorised, approved, established or participated in the activities of the purported organisation.
According to Gagdi, correspondence showed that concerns about the organisation had previously been brought to the Chief of Staff’s attention.
Following an alert from the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission concerning suspected fraudulent activities and misuse of institutional materials, the Chief of Staff allegedly communicated within one day with the police, Office of the National Security Adviser, Department of State Services and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
He also initiated administrative verification through relevant government institutions.
When further concerns emerged over a proposed World Investment Summit, additional communications requesting investigation and appropriate action were issued.
‘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,’ Gagdi said.
‘On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates repeated steps to secure investigation, institutional verification and appropriate administrative action.’
Committee traces alleged N400m payment
One of the financial allegations before the Committee involves a company which claimed that Adeyemi induced it to pay about N400 million in four instalments.
According to the complaint, the payments were made after representations that the company would receive a contract for the renovation, furnishing or improvement of a residence allegedly allocated to Adeyemi in his claimed official capacity as Director-General.
The company allegedly took representatives to a residential property in Abuja and presented it as his purported official residence.
The Committee is tracing the destinations of the payments, identifying account holders and beneficial owners, verifying the ownership and status of the property and determining whether any public officer or other person participated in or benefited from the transaction.
Gagdi said that if established through competent investigative and judicial processes, the allegations could disclose offences including fraudulent misrepresentation, obtaining money by false pretence, impersonation, conspiracy, forgery and offences relating to the movement or concealment of proceeds of crime.
Committee identifies systemic failures
Beyond the activities attributed to Adeyemi and related entities, the Committee identified what it described as serious weaknesses in the machinery of government.
These include deficiencies in verifying the lawful existence of government institutions; creation and administration of budget and administrative codes; authentication and custody of official correspondence; verification of appointments purportedly emanating from the Presidency; allocation of Federal Secretariat accommodation; processing of special vehicle registration numbers; protection of government letterheads, signatures and institutional identities; inter-agency information sharing; and compliance by public officers with parliamentary invitations.
Gagdi said fabricated documents alone might not have achieved the level of apparent legitimacy attained by the organisation without corresponding weaknesses in institutional verification and administrative controls.
The Committee’s responsibility, he said, therefore extended beyond determining individual culpability to identifying systemic failures and recommending reforms.
Preliminary finding: PFIPC not lawfully established
On the evidence presently before it, the Committee preliminarily determined that the PFIPC was not lawfully established.
It said documentary materials used to project the organisation’s existence and authority contained substantial evidence of alleged fabrication, forgery, mutilation, impersonation and unauthorised representation of institutions and public officers.
The emerging picture, according to the Committee, includes purported presidential and State House correspondence; a forged appointment attributed to the Chief of Staff; a fabricated Executive Order; an altered document presented as an Act of the National Assembly; unauthorised use of the names and identities of the President and senior officials; misrepresentation to government financial and administrative institutions; unauthorised occupation of Federal Secretariat accommodation; procurement of official-looking number plates; recruitment of a purported workforce; a misleading digital identity; multiple associated entities and bank accounts; and alleged inducement of individuals and organisations to part with substantial sums.
The preliminary evidence, Gagdi said, identified Adeyemi as the principal person associated with the representation and operation of the purported organisation and its wider network of related entities.
He said the alleged forging or mutilation of instruments purporting to emanate from the Presidency or National Assembly was particularly reprehensible.
‘Such conduct, where proved, constitutes an attack on the integrity of the institutions of the Republic themselves,’ he said.
The Committee consequently considered the allegations serious enough to warrant the prompt conclusion of criminal and financial investigations.
Where sufficient admissible evidence is established, it said the appropriate agencies should institute criminal proceedings and pursue lawful measures for tracing, preservation, freezing and recovery of proceeds or assets derived from established unlawful conduct.
The Committee nevertheless stressed that criminal guilt could only be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction and that all persons affected remained entitled to fair hearing and other protections guaranteed by law.
Further investigations
Before submitting its final report, the Committee will reconcile the legal identities and ownership structures of all associated entities and verify the precise number, ownership and control of the identified bank accounts.
It will analyse financial transactions, establish the aggregate sums received, transferred or withdrawn, identify signatories, operators and beneficial owners and determine the roles of public officers connected with the matter.
The panel will also investigate the unauthorised occupation of Federal Secretariat accommodation, the processes leading to special number plates, the authors and beneficiaries of allegedly fabricated documents, the sources of the purported Executive Order and National Assembly Act, and the full list of alleged victims and financial losses.
It will establish whether any appropriation, warrant, cash backing or financial release was made in favour of the purported organisation.
The Committee will also trace the alleged ?400 million transaction, verify the ownership and status of the property represented as the purported official residence and establish the full extent of Adeyemi’s connection with the identified entities.
It will determine whether any public officer knowingly facilitated the activities under investigation and recommend appropriate criminal, civil, administrative, disciplinary and financial measures where warranted.
Preliminary recommendations
Pending completion of the investigation, the Committee recommended that ministries, departments and agencies should not recognise, transact with or extend governmental privileges to the PFIPC or related entities whose legal status had not been independently verified.
It also recommended that no appropriation, administrative code, warrant, cash backing, financial release or government facility should be processed in favour of the purported organisation.
Financial institutions and investigative agencies should preserve account records, transaction histories, mandates and beneficial ownership information relating to persons and entities under investigation.
Security and anti-corruption agencies were urged to conclude their investigations and coordinate evidence in accordance with the law.
The Committee further recommended the preservation of documentary and electronic evidence, websites, devices, correspondence, properties and institutional records against destruction, alteration or interference.
The Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation should conduct a comprehensive audit of office allocations within Federal Secretariat complexes.
The Federal Road Safety Corps should review procedures for issuing official and special number plates to prevent unverified organisations from acquiring an appearance of governmental status.
The Budget Office and Office of the Accountant-General should introduce enhanced authentication procedures for new institutions, administrative codes, budget codes and correspondence purportedly originating from the Presidency or other high offices.
The Federal Government was also urged to establish or strengthen a secure centralised digital platform through which the lawful existence, establishing instrument and status of every federal ministry, department and agency can be independently verified.
Public officers and institutions with outstanding invitations or information requests from the Committee were urged to comply with the lawful exercise of parliamentary investigative powers.
The Committee further recommended intensified investigation of Adeyemi and all persons and entities materially connected with the alleged scheme, with criminal proceedings instituted where sufficient evidence exists.
It specifically recommended a separate and comprehensive investigation of the alleged N400 million transaction and appropriate lawful measures to trace, preserve, freeze and recover proceeds of any established unlawful activity, subject to judicial authorisation where required.
It also recommended formal acknowledgement of the timely interventions undertaken by the Chief of Staff whenever the matter was brought to his attention.
‘This is about integrity of Nigerian state’
Gagdi said the investigation went beyond the activities of a purported organisation.
‘It concerns the integrity of the Federal Budget Process, the sanctity of presidential authority, the authenticity of Acts and instruments of the National Assembly, the security of government correspondence, the responsibility of public institutions and the ability of the Nigerian state to protect its official identity from fraudulent appropriation,’ he said.
‘The National Assembly cannot permit its legislative authority to be counterfeited.
‘The Presidency cannot be impersonated with impunity.’
He said any person who falsified an Act of the National Assembly, manufactured a presidential appointment, fabricated an Executive Order, invented public offices or unlawfully deployed the identity of the President and government institutions must face the consequences where responsibility was established.
At the same time, he said, the Committee would adhere to fair hearing and due process.
‘No person will be condemned merely on allegation, and no person or institution will be shielded where credible evidence establishes responsibility,’ Gagdi said.
The Committee is expected to complete the outstanding aspects of the investigation and submit its final report to the House.
The report will contain definitive findings, identified institutional and individual responsibilities and recommendations for appropriate legislative, administrative, disciplinary, civil, financial and prosecutorial action.
It will then be laid before the House at plenary for consideration, debate and possible adoption, amendment or rejection.
Gagdi said the ultimate objective was to prevent private individuals or organisations from manufacturing governmental authority for personal advantage.
‘It is about protecting the Presidency from impersonation, defending the legislative authority of the National Assembly, securing the Federal Budget Process, safeguarding the identity of the Federal Government and ensuring that no individual is permitted to manufacture governmental authority for private advantage.’
The Committee, he said, would complete the assignment strictly based on evidence, law and the Constitution.