•Head of Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Esther Walson-Jack
The House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee investigating the activities of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) is set to conclude its investigation without taking testimony from two key figures at the centre of the probe — Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, and the self-acclaimed Director-General of the council, Adeyemi Adeniyi.
Instead, the committee said it would rely on documentary evidence gathered during weeks of investigation, as well as reports from security agencies, before unveiling its preliminary findings next week, reports The Guardian.
It is also expected that the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) would conclude its investigation into the matter as directed by President Bola Tinubu.
Yesterday at the resumed hearing, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (HoS), Didi Esther Walson-Jack, admitted that her office failed to conduct adequate due diligence before granting recruitment approvals to the controversial PFIPC.
Walson-Jack made the admission while appearing before the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee investigating the activities of the PFIPC and the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC).
She told lawmakers that her office relied on documents presented by representatives of the organisations, including a purported Establishment Act and appointment letter, without independently verifying their authenticity.
According to her, the Office of the Head of the Civil Service issued an Authorised Establishment and later approved a Recruitment Waiver based on the documents submitted and its engagements with the representatives of the PEAC/PFIPC.
“My office received the Letter of Appointment and the Establishment Act and, based on those documents and also based on the interaction with the representatives of the PEAC and PFIPC, we went on to issue the Authorised Establishment and later the Recruitment Waiver,” she said.
The HoS, however, acknowledged that the office should have subjected the documents to more rigorous scrutiny before granting the approvals.
“Having now seen all the facts and examined all the documents, we concede that we ought to have carried out more due diligence in issuing the Authorised Establishment and Recruitment Waiver to the PEAC/PFIPC,” she said.
Explaining how the approvals were granted, Walson-Jack noted that the existence of the Presidential Economic Advisory Council as an ad hoc body may have contributed to the confusion.
She said the documents presented to her office bore the names “PEAC/PFIPC,” adding that a proper verification process would likely have uncovered questions about their authenticity.
“We knew that PEAC existed as an ad hoc organisation, and the documents presented carried PEAC/PFIPC. However, proper due diligence could have established whether those documents were genuine,” she added.
Recall that on July 7, the President directed the anti-graft agency to investigate PFIPC’s activities, with a 30-day timeline for submitting its findings. Incidentally, the two principal figures involved – Adeyemi and Gbajabiamila – have availed themselves to ICPC investigators.
After the 48-hour deadline expired, the Reps committee issued an order to the police to produce Adeyemi for questioning. The Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, has explained why the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) was unable to produce Adeyemi before the House of Representatives Ad-Hoc Committee investigating the activities of the controversial PFIPC.
The committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, on Monday directed the IGP to produce Adeyemi after testimonies from several government institutions implicated the purported council and disowned its operations. The directive followed submissions by the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Budget Office of the Federation, the Nigeria Police Force and other agencies, all of which distanced themselves from the purported council.
At the resumed investigative hearing yesterday, Disu was represented by Olufemi Akinola, Deputy Commissioner of Police and Deputy Director at the Nigeria Police Force National Cybercrime Centre, alongside Bashir Abdullahi, an Assistant Commissioner of Police.
Explaining the police’s inability to produce Adeyemi, Akinola said the suspect is currently being detained pursuant to a valid order of the Federal High Court, adding that the police could only comply with the committee’s directive after obtaining the appropriate court authorisation.
“The NPF may not be able to produce the suspect as requested in view of the subsisting warrant. However, in this case, it will be appreciated if the reproduction warrant could be sought from the court of competent jurisdiction to enable the police to comply with this request,” Akinola said.
Responding, Gagdi accepted the explanation and assured the police that the committee would immediately initiate the legal process required to obtain the necessary court order. He also pledged that the committee would formally communicate with the Office of the Inspector-General of Police once the order had been secured.
In response to the police’s statement to the newsmen, the committee chairman, Gagdi, clarified that the suspect did not ignore the committee’s invitation.
“The Inspector-General did not refuse to produce him before this committee. The police only informed us that the suspect remains in custody by virtue of a subsisting court order.”
Gagdi noted that the committee was equally mindful of parallel investigations being conducted by the ICPC, NPF, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Department of State Services (DSS) and the Office of the National Security Adviser. According to him, the panel would continue to engage the agencies through written correspondence where necessary before submitting its report.
The development means the House panel will conclude one of its most high-profile investigations without hearing directly from Gbajabiamila, whose alleged signature appeared on some of the documents linked to the council, and Adeyemi, who allegedly presented himself as Director-General of the PFIPC.
Meanwhile, Chairman of the Centre for Anti-Corruption and Open Leadership (CACOL), Debo Adeniran, has dismissed the House of Representatives’ investigation into the controversial PFIPC as unnecessary grandstanding and a duplication of the ongoing investigation being conducted by the ICPC.
Speaking on the controversy surrounding PFIPC, a body that has come under public scrutiny over questions regarding its legal status, operations, and claims of government affiliation, Adeniran argued that the National Assembly should allow the ICPC to carry out its statutory responsibilities without interference.
According to him, lawmakers’ decision to launch a separate probe while the anti-corruption agency is already investigating the matter raises concerns about attempts to complicate or influence the process.
While he declined to speculate on whether there was a deliberate effort to cover up wrongdoing, he maintained that the circumstances surrounding the parallel investigations create unnecessary uncertainty.
“I don’t want to speculate on whether there is an attempt to cover up the matter, but the ICPC should be allowed to do its work without interference,” he said.
Adeniran questioned the need for the House of Representatives to undertake what he described as a parallel investigation, stressing that the ICPC possesses the legal mandate, technical expertise, and investigative capacity to examine allegations involving financial impropriety, abuse of office, and related offences.
The anti-corruption campaigner noted that if the National Assembly had effectively exercised its oversight functions over public institutions and government-related activities, concerns surrounding PFIPC might have been identified much earlier.
He argued that proper due diligence is essential whenever organisations claim links to government institutions or seek to engage with investors and public agencies in the name of the federal government.
The PFIPC controversy has drawn national attention following allegations that the organisation presented itself as a presidential initiative for promoting foreign investment, despite questions about its official status and authorisation.
The matter has also generated public debate because of alleged links to prominent public figures, including the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, and Matthew Adeniyi Adeyemi.
Adeniran stressed that all allegations, whether against individuals associated with PFIPC or those who promoted its activities, should be thoroughly investigated by the appropriate law-enforcement agencies.
He maintained that no individual should be presumed guilty, but neither should anyone be shielded from scrutiny because of political influence or connections.
He further argued that the House investigation risks giving the impression of an attempt to “hijack” a matter already before a competent investigative agency. According to him, criminal investigations should be left primarily to institutions empowered by law to gather evidence, establish facts, and determine whether prosecutions are warranted.
“The National Assembly has oversight responsibilities, but it does not possess prosecutorial powers over criminal matters. The ICPC is the agency specifically mandated to investigate corruption-related allegations and should be allowed to complete its work,” he stated.
Adeniran also called for greater transparency and accountability in dealings involving organisations that claim government backing, particularly in financial transactions, investment facilitation, or representations to local and foreign investors.
He warned that failures in due diligence can damage public trust and potentially expose investors and government institutions to reputational risks.
He concluded by urging all relevant authorities to cooperate with the ICPC’s investigation and allow the facts to emerge through a transparent, professional, and independent process.
According to him, any individual found culpable after due investigation should be held accountable, while those wrongly accused should be cleared through the same process of impartial inquiry.
