The controversy surrounding the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) deepened on Monday as its self-appointed Director-General, Adeniyi Adeyemi, insisted that journalists and his legal representatives must be present before he submits to questioning by the House of Representatives committee investigating the council.
Adeyemi, who is currently in police custody, had earlier declined to answer questions from members of the House Ad Hoc Committee probing the alleged activities of the PFIPC.
The committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, a member representing Kanke/Kanam/Pankshin Federal Constituency of Plateau State, is investigating how the council allegedly secured office space within the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja and obtained more than N1.32bn allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act despite questions surrounding its legal status.
The investigation has attracted widespread attention, particularly over allegations that the PFIPC operated within government structures and participated in official processes despite allegedly lacking a legal foundation.
Adeyemi’s family said he had informed the committee that he was willing to answer questions but would only do so if the proceedings were conducted openly and his lawyers and members of the media were allowed to attend.
A family source said, “They eventually rescheduled to Monday and my brother told them that when they are coming, they should come with the media, otherwise he will not grant them audience.”
According to the source, the committee initially agreed to the presence of journalists but later changed its position.
The source added that Adeyemi was prepared to respond to the allegations but wanted the process to be transparent.
His lawyer, Ademola Oyedokun, had also opposed the committee’s earlier decision to question his client at an undisclosed location while he remained in police custody.
Oyedokun argued that Adeyemi should be given an opportunity to respond publicly to allegations that had already been made against him in public.
“Everyone else in this matter has been heard in public, and what has been said about our client was said in public. He should be allowed to answer in the same place it was said,” the lawyer stated.
The House committee had earlier explained that questioning Adeyemi at an undisclosed location was necessary because he remained in police custody in connection with ongoing investigations by security and anti-corruption agencies.
Gagdi said the committee would not take any action capable of undermining the judiciary, noting that Adeyemi was being held pursuant to a court order.
The committee has already heard from several senior government officials, including the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack; the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Tanimu Yakubu; the Director of Banking Services at the Central Bank of Nigeria, Hamisu Abdullahi; and representatives of the Inspector-General of Police.
Their testimonies reportedly raised questions about how Adeyemi allegedly presented himself as the head of the PFIPC and gained access and recognition within government institutions.
Meanwhile, the Coalition of United Political Parties has criticised the findings of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission on the controversy.
The coalition described the ICPC investigation as inadequate and called for a broader and more transparent probe into the activities of the PFIPC.
CUPP spokesperson, Agu Bryan, argued that the ICPC’s reported decision to clear the Presidency while indicting Adeyemi failed to address how an organisation allegedly lacking legal recognition could have operated within government structures.
Bryan said the scale of the PFIPC’s alleged activities suggested that Adeyemi could not have operated without assistance or enabling actions from individuals within government institutions.
He called for investigations into the roles allegedly played by institutions including the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.
The CUPP spokesperson also questioned how funds were appropriated to the PFIPC in the national budget if the organisation had no legal foundation.
He demanded clarification from the National Assembly and relevant government agencies on how the budgetary provision was processed and approved.
Bryan further questioned allegations that hundreds of people were recruited by the PFIPC and how Adeyemi allegedly gained access to government activities and facilities.
The controversy was further heightened by the reported discovery that a signature attributed to the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, was allegedly forged.
CUPP said the development should prompt investigators to examine other documents and official correspondence allegedly used by Adeyemi.
The coalition also questioned whether government officials responsible for verifying the credentials of individuals dealing with public institutions adequately performed their duties.
Bryan maintained that the investigation should not be limited to determining whether Adeyemi allegedly forged documents but should also establish how he was able to gain access to government processes and secure recognition for the PFIPC.
He called for an independent investigation involving professional bodies if the Federal Government was determined to establish the full circumstances surrounding the controversy.
The House committee’s investigation is expected to focus on how the PFIPC was created, how it operated, who recognised it and how it allegedly gained access to government facilities and public funds.
Adeyemi’s eventual appearance before the lawmakers is expected to be significant as the committee seeks to establish whether the alleged activities were carried out solely by him or whether other individuals and government institutions were involved.
The police, meanwhile, said Adeyemi could receive visitors provided they met the necessary requirements.
Police spokesperson, Ani Ineidu, said anyone in custody had a right to visitors where the appropriate documents and authorisation were presented.
The PFIPC controversy involves allegations bordering on impersonation, forgery, financial impropriety and the alleged unlawful use of government facilities and official insignia.
Adeyemi has denied neither his willingness to defend himself nor the House committee’s right to investigate the matter, but insists that he should be given a fair and transparent opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.
Tags
News