Fake PFIPC Agency: Testimonies Uncover Loopholes

July 27, () — With the trial and arraignment of Adeniyi Adeyemi, head of the fake Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, PFIPC, postponed to September 30, 2026, the attention of the agency has shifted to the investigating committee of the House of Representatives.

The committee, christened: Ad hoc Committee to Investigate the Circumstances Surrounding the Existence and Operations of PFIPC and its Inclusion in the Budget Framework, has Hon. Yusuf Gagdi as Chairman. Officials whose offices have featured in the fake agency’s operations have been called up to testify before the Investigating Committee of the House of Reps. They are Chief of staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamilia; National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu; Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN; Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Oyedele, Accountant-General of the Federation, Dr. Samsideen Ogunjimi; Secretary to Government of the Federation, George Akume and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu. The Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee, Rep. Yusuf Gagdi, handed down the invitations during an investigative session on the matter at the National Assembly, Abuja.

Tomorrow, Monday, July 27, 2026, the Committee resumes its probe with the interrogation of Dr. Ogunjimi, hoping that, “by the special grace of God, we will conclude our findings and finish…” Hon. Gagdi said.

Gagdi announced that the Accountant-General of the Federation would appear before the committee on Monday to explain how the PFIPC obtained its budget code, while officials of other agencies involved in the processing of the council’s documents would also testify. However, fresh revelations emerged at the weekend as the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Tanimu Yakubu, disclosed that although more than ₦1.3 billion was appropriated for the council in the 2026 budget, not a single kobo of public funds was ever released because Nigeria’s financial safeguards prevented the expenditure from taking place.

Yakubu told lawmakers that the Budget Office neither created nor legitimised the council, insisting it merely discharged its statutory responsibility after receiving official establishment documents that investigators now suspect were forged.

Defending the agency’s role, Yakubu maintained that the Budget Office neither established the council nor approved its existence, recruitment, salaries or budget code. According to him, the office simply performed its constitutional responsibility by evaluating the financial implications of approvals and establishment authorisations received from other statutory government institutions.

“The Budget Office did not create the council. It did not assign its budget code. It did not approve its establishment. It did not grant its recruitment waiver. It received official instruments and did what the law required of it. It measured their fiscal effect”, he told the committee. Yakubu disclosed that while the PFIPC requested ₦3.8 billion as personnel costs, the Budget Office rejected the proposal after conducting an independent assessment.

Using the approved establishment and salary structure prescribed by the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission, the agency recalculated the requirement and arrived at ₦802,978,783.

“That estimate did not form the basis of the Budget Office’s recommendation. The Budget Office rejected it and made an independent calculation. That calculation produced ₦802,978,783. This was not a concession to the council. It was the Budget Office’s own fiscal proposal”, he explained.

Yakubu stressed that despite the appropriation, the Budget Office deliberately withheld the mandatory financial clearance required before any federal agency could commence recruitment, enroll workers on the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS), or begin salary payments.

He explained that although personnel costs accounted for about 61.63 per cent of the council’s appropriation, no funds were ever accessed.

The Budget Office boss also disclosed that the council’s ₦200 million overhead allocation remained untouched because treasury warrants and cash backing were never issued.

Similarly, the ₦300 million capital allocation did not progress beyond the appropriation stage because none of the statutory procurement requirements prescribed by law was fulfilled.

He said no Ministerial Tenders Board approved any contract, no Certificate of No Objection was issued by the Bureau of Public Procurement and neither treasury warrants nor cash backing were granted.

According to Yakubu, the episode demonstrated that Nigeria’s public financial management framework worked exactly as intended. Yakubu insisted that the Budget Office never relied on the purported Act in determining personnel costs. Instead, he said the office based its calculations strictly on establishment authorisations, recruitment approvals and salary directives issued by the relevant statutory authorities.

Chairman of the committee, Rep. Yusuf Gagdi, defended the Budget Office’s conduct, saying the evidence before lawmakers indicated that the agency complied with all procedural requirements before making budgetary provisions for the council.

According to him, the committee had already established that the documents relied upon by various government agencies were later discovered to be suspected forgeries. According to Gagdi, the agency’s diplomatic engagement with some embassies was an embarrassment to Nigeria. Earlier, he expressed dismay over the inability of the Foreign Affairs Ministry to effectively detect the existence of the fake agency.

Responding, the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Dunoma Ahmed, acknowledged receipt of letters from the fake agency for engagement with diplomats.

Ahmed explained that upon receipt of the letters, the Ministry carried out inquiries into their originality and discovered that the agency was fake.

According to him, the ministry wrote to the Office of the National Security Adviser informing them that the agency was fake.

From the Head of Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs Didi Walson-Jack, the panel heard that the office space occupied by PFIPC was allocated to the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, OSGF. Walson-Jack said that PFIPC approached her office to approve its organisational structure, but it was not granted for lack of proper documentation. She said that the Office of the Head of Service to the Federation, OHSF, did not deploy any staff, nor did it approve any office space for the council.

Ogunjimi’s earlier position submitted to the House panel that no accounts were opened in the name of the phantom PFIPC agency was faulted by Hamisu Abdullahi, a Director of Banking with the Central Bank of Nigeria, who disclosed that the PFIPC operated two accounts with it following an authorised mandate from the AGF office.

Abdullahi explained that on July 30, 2025, the Office of the AGF wrote to CBN, giving the bank clearance to open the accounts.

He said it is standard practice that any agency seeking to open an account, change signatories or close an account must be cleared by the accountant-general’s office before the bank would proceed.

Meanwhile, the Minister of Finance, Taiwo Oyedele, sent a ministry official, a deputy director, who was rejected by the panel. The committee dismissed the minister’s plea for failure to appear in person due to an earlier scheduled meeting at the Senate and issued strict warnings and a 48-hour ultimatum for top officials to comply.

Also, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, like the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, George Akume, have so far failed to appear for the House of Representatives hearing on July 21, 2026, drawing criticism from lawmakers over the absence of invited key officials in the PFIPC probe.

Reacting to the revelations, Committee Chairman, Gagdi expressed concern that the Office of the National Security Adviser had confirmed as far back as November 2025 that the PFIPC was not a recognised government institution, yet questions remained over the actions taken afterwards.

According to the News Agency of Nigeria, NAN, Gagdi said it was the committee’s responsibility to determine whether the country’s security agencies took appropriate steps after establishing that the council had no legal existence.

He expressed regrets that the ONSA and Foreign Affairs Ministry failed to honour the committee’s invitation.

Explaining the summons, Mr Gagdi said the committee wanted ONSA to account for the actions it took after the Ministry of Foreign Affairs raised concerns over the authenticity of the organisation.