•Femi Gbajabiamila and Adeniyi Adeyemi
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, Prince 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.
Chairman of the committee, Rep. Yusuf Adamu Gagdi, disclosed this today after the Nigeria Police Force explained why it could not produce Adeyemi before the lawmakers, reports The Guardian.
Representing the Inspector-General of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police Olufemi Akinola said the suspect remains in police custody under a subsisting court remand order, making it impossible for the police to release him to appear before the committee.
Akinola said although the police acknowledged the constitutional oversight powers of the National Assembly and remained committed to cooperating with the House, it could not produce Adeyemi until the court order remanding him in custody was vacated.
Reading the police’s response, 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.
“We respect the principle of separation of powers and will not do anything capable of interfering with ongoing judicial proceedings,” Gagdi said.
He added that the committee was equally mindful of parallel investigations being conducted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Department of State Services (DSS), the Nigeria Police Force 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.
Despite the absence of the two principal figures, Gagdi said the committee had gathered sufficient documentary evidence to establish what he described as a coordinated attempt to legitimise the fake council.
According to him, the investigation uncovered no fewer than 19 documents allegedly forged in the names of senior State House officials.
He revealed that the committee established that some of the documents purportedly originated from offices that do not exist within the State House structure.
“We have established where the budget emanated, how it emanated and the documents allegedly forged to guide public offices.
“We have equally discovered that fictitious departments were created in the State House that do not exist at all.
“It is not only one letter. There are 19 different documents that were allegedly forged. We will continue to verify them with the police and other agencies before concluding our report,” he said.
The committee urged Nigerians not to politicise the investigation but to allow the facts to determine its outcome.
“We should not be carried away by politics or sentiments. Let us follow the facts wherever they lead,” Gagdi said.
The committee also scrutinised officials of the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) over the issuance of an administrative code to the PFIPC.
Lawmakers questioned why the office acted on correspondence purportedly originating from a department that investigations had shown never existed within the State House.
Speaking, Director, federal project, Financial management department, OAGF, Joshua Luka explained that the office processed a request addressed to the Permanent Secretary, State House, believing it would be verified through the appropriate administrative channels.
However, the committee challenged the explanation Luka confirmed that Prince Adeyemi personally visited the office and collected the acknowledgement copy of the correspondence intended for the State House.
Bello Abdullahi, another staff in the OAGF, confirmed that he handed it over to Adeyemi, describing it as the standard practice in the agency.
But displaying the documents before the committee, Gagdi questioned how correspondence addressed to the Permanent Secretary ended up in the possession of the suspect.
“If the letter had reached the Permanent Secretary’s office, they would have immediately informed you that such a department does not exist. The fraud would have been exposed much earlier,” he said.
Although OAGF officials insisted the lapse resulted from the actions of an individual rather than an institutional failure, the committee maintained that government institutions must strengthen internal controls to prevent similar occurrences.
The PFIPC investigation was launched after lawmakers discovered that the council, which several government agencies insist has no legal backing or presidential approval, was allocated a budget code in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
During the course of the probe, officials from the State House, Budget Office of the Federation, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation and other agencies distanced themselves from the council, with some denying the existence of offices and documents relied upon by the organisation.
Gagdi said the committee had substantially concluded its assignment and would spend the coming days engaging relevant agencies behind closed doors before presenting its preliminary findings to the public next week.
He added that the committee’s comprehensive report would thereafter be laid before the House of Representatives for consideration and further legislative action.
