LPFIPC: Reps panel clears Gbaja, links 12 agencies, 58 bank accounts to DG

The House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee investigating the controversial Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, PFIPC, has cleared the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, of allegations that he authorised, established or participated in the activities of the purported government agency.

The committee, chaired by Rep. Yusuf Adamu Gagdi, said its preliminary findings showed that the PFIPC was not lawfully established by the Federal Government and that documents allegedly used to confer presidential and legislative legitimacy on the organisation were forged, fabricated or altered.

The panel also uncovered about 58 bank accounts and 12 agencies and entities allegedly linked to Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, who was presented as the Director General of the purported organisation.

Of particular significance, the committee found that a purported letter appointing Adeyemi as Director General and allegedly bearing Gbajabiamila’s authority and signature was not issued by the Chief of Staff or the Presidency. According to the panel, evidence obtained from the State House established that no such appointment was made or approved by the Presidency and that Gbajabiamila neither issued nor signed the letter.

It also found that the letterhead was not authentic State House letterhead and that the reference number was inconsistent with the Presidency’s official referencing system.

The committee consequently made a preliminary finding that the purported appointment letter was fabricated and falsely attributed to the Presidency.

It said the documentary evidence before it did not establish that Gbajabiamila authorised, approved, established or participated in the activities of the purported organisation. Rather, the panel said evidence showed that he took steps to trigger investigations after concerns about the organisation were brought to his attention.

The committee said that following an alert from the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, NIPC, over suspected fraudulent activities and misuse of institutional materials, Gbajabiamila communicated with security and investigative agencies, including the Nigeria Police Force, Office of the National Security Adviser, Department of State Services and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

It added that he also initiated administrative verification through relevant government institutions and requested further investigation when additional concerns emerged. The panel subsequently commended him for what it described as timely security and administrative interventions.

The lawmakers also uncovered a purported Presidential Executive Order No. 5, dated February 24, 2026, which was allegedly used to provide legal authority for the organisation. However, the committee said evidence before it indicated that the document was neither issued nor approved through lawful presidential processes.

It described the alleged fabrication of a presidential instrument as a serious matter capable of undermining the authority of the Nigerian state.

The committee further uncovered what it described as the alleged mutilation and fabrication of a document presented as an Act of the National Assembly establishing the purported agency.

According to the panel, the document was never passed by both chambers of the National Assembly, assented to by the President or gazetted as an Act of the Federation. It said portions of a document relating to another institution appeared to have been electronically altered, mutilated or substituted to create the impression that Parliament had established the PFIPC.

Another document under investigation was a letter dated November 7, 2024, purportedly from the State House and addressed to the Accountant General of the Federation, requesting an administrative code for the PFIPC.

The letter was allegedly signed by one Akambi Adewale, described as a Director of Administration and Support Services. However, the committee said the State House established that the office and directorate represented in the document did not exist in the stated form and that no State House official known as Akambi Adewale served in the claimed capacity.

The panel also raised concerns about the handling of the purported State House request by the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation and the Budget Office of the Federation. It said the Accountant General’s response to the request was authentic, but the originating request was allegedly forged.

The office reportedly acknowledged that the response should not have been released to Adeyemi or another unauthorised person but should have been transmitted through an authenticated official channel.

The Budget Office is also under scrutiny over how the purported organisation gained recognition within the Federal Budget Framework despite allegedly lacking lawful status.

The investigation further found that the purported organisation occupied office accommodation within the Federal Secretariat Complex without lawful allocation from the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.

Evidence before the committee indicated that part of accommodation previously allocated to the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation was subsequently made available to the organisation by certain officers without lawful authority. The lawmakers said the occupation of the facility helped the organisation project itself as a legitimate federal institution.

The committee disclosed that about 39 people were allegedly presented as employees of the purported organisation. It said it was investigating their recruitment, appointment letters, identity cards, salaries and allowances, as well as allegations that some individuals may have been required to pay money as a condition for employment.

The panel said it would distinguish between individuals who were allegedly deceived and those who knowingly participated in or benefited from the activities under investigation.

On the financial aspect, the committee said preliminary information showed that identifying details associated with Adeyemi were linked to approximately 58 bank accounts, with more than 30 apparently operated in the names of about nine agencies, companies, foundations or related entities.

The lawmakers said they were still reconciling registration records, account mandates, beneficial ownership information, signatories and transaction histories to establish the true nature and control of the accounts and organisations. The committee cautioned that it had not concluded that every account or entity identified was unlawful.

The panel also disclosed an alleged N400 million transaction involving a company which claimed that Adeyemi induced it to make payments in four instalments after representing that he could secure a contract for the renovation, furnishing or improvement of a residence purportedly allocated to him in his claimed official capacity.

The committee said it was tracing the destination of the funds, identifying account holders and beneficial owners, and determining whether any public officer or private individual participated in, facilitated or benefited from the transaction. It stressed that criminal guilt had not been established and that all persons affected remained entitled to fair hearing and due process.

The committee said the investigation went beyond the alleged creation of a fake agency, warning that the alleged fabrication of presidential and legislative documents posed a threat to the integrity of Nigeria’s constitutional institutions. It said the National Assembly could not permit its legislative authority to be counterfeited and that the Presidency could not be impersonated with impunity.

The panel identified Adeyemi as the principal person associated with the representation and operation of the purported organisation and with a wider network of related entities. However, it emphasised that its findings were preliminary and did not amount to a final determination of criminal guilt.

The committee recommended that security and anti corruption agencies conclude their investigations and prosecute anyone against whom sufficient admissible evidence is established. It also called for the tracing, preservation, freezing and recovery of proceeds of any established unlawful activity, subject to the law and applicable judicial processes.

The committee said it would complete outstanding aspects of its investigation before submitting its final report to the House. The report is expected to identify individual and institutional responsibilities and recommend possible legislative, administrative, disciplinary, civil, financial and criminal actions.

On the allegation that Gbajabiamila authorised or participated in the purported PFIPC, however, the committee’s preliminary position was clear: it found no evidence establishing such involvement and instead documented actions by the Chief of Staff aimed at triggering investigations into the purported organisation.