•Adeniyi Adeyemi
The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has concluded its investigation into the controversy surrounding the existence of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC).
This is just as the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the matter said it would brief the public on its findings this week before submitting its final report to the House, following weeks of investigation into the controversial council, reports Daily Trust.
President Bola Tinubu had, on Tuesday, July 7, 2026, given the ICPC 30 days to investigate the controversy and submit its report within the stipulated timeframe in a bid to unravel the mystery surrounding the council.
Sources within the anti-graft agency told our correspondents last night that the prime suspect at the centre of the controversy, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, the controversial director-general of the purported council, had been interrogated.
According to one of the sources, Adeyemi was questioned on Thursday at the headquarters of the Intelligence Response Team (IRT), located within the premises of the defunct Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) facility in Guzape, Abuja, where he has been held since his arrest.
“The prime suspect (Adeyemi) was supposed to be interviewed last Wednesday, but his lawyer couldn’t arrive on time. Because the police had other people to attend to, ICPC officials were asked to return the following day.
“The operatives went back on Thursday and interviewed him. Several other people had been interviewed before then. I think the report is being finalised now and will be submitted before the deadline,” the highly placed source told our correspondent.
The ICPC spokesman, John Odey, could not be reached for comment last night as calls to his mobile phone went unanswered.
Earlier, Adeyemi, who appealed to the House ad hoc committee to allow him to testify before it, insisted he was being made a scapegoat, warning that any report produced without hearing from him would be fundamentally flawed.
In a statement issued on Sunday through his legal team led by Festus Akhigbe, the embattled DG argued that it was impossible for a single individual to create and operate a federal government agency without the knowledge and participation of several public institutions.
“In light of the ongoing proceedings by the House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee, chaired by Hon. Yusuf Adamu Gagdi, we formally request that the panel issue the necessary administrative clearance to allow our client, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, to appear in person and testify.
“Any investigative outcome or final legislative report produced without affording our client a direct hearing would be fundamentally flawed, incomplete and a breach of the constitutional right to a fair hearing,” the statement said.
Commenting on the matter at its last public hearing on Wednesday, July 29, the committee said it had uncovered what it described as an extensive case of document fraud but would conclude its investigation after carrying out final verification with the remaining government agencies linked to the matter.
Addressing journalists after the hearing, the committee chairman, Yusuf Gagdi (APC, Plateau), said the panel had made significant progress after receiving submissions from key government institutions.
He explained that the committee could not hear directly from Adeyemi because he remained in custody under a subsisting court order, adding that the lawmakers had respected the judicial process while continuing with their assignment.
Gagdi said documentary evidence obtained by the committee so far pointed to widespread forgery, including the creation and use of a purported Directorate of Administration and Support Services under the State House, which investigations found to be non-existent.
He said the committee would conduct further in-house verification of documents and hold follow-up sessions with the remaining agencies to clarify outstanding issues and ensure all parties were given a fair hearing before concluding its work.
He added that the committee would brief Nigerians on its findings this week before presenting a comprehensive report to the House for legislative action, reaffirming its commitment to a thorough, transparent and impartial investigation.
However, Adeyemi maintained that available records contradicted claims that he single-handedly fabricated the council.
According to his legal team, several federal institutions officially dealt with the PFIPC, including the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the Budget Office of the Federation and the National Assembly.
The lawyers also claimed that security agencies participated in programmes organised by the council, while the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) allocated office space to the PFIPC and recognised its leadership.
“It is administratively impossible for an unassisted individual to mislead multiple federal institutions into approving structures, assigning personnel, opening government accounts and securing budgetary allocations,” the statement said.
The legal team argued that their client was being unfairly blamed for deeper institutional failures and administrative lapses within the government, urging the committee to hear directly from him before finalising its report.
Let Adeyemi defend himself —
CDD urges House panel
Meanwhile, the Director of the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), Dr Garuba Dauda, urged the House panel to allow Adeyemi to defend himself before reaching a final decision.
“You can’t shave somebody’s head in his absence. Even within the context of the law, you must always allow a person to defend himself or herself before reaching a conclusion,” Dauda said in an interview with our correspondent.
He argued that Adeyemi’s detention should not prevent the committee from obtaining his testimony, noting that the suspect is in the custody of a government agency and could be produced before the lawmakers through the appropriate legal process.
According to him, if security agencies require a court order before producing Adeyemi before the committee, the National Assembly could approach the court to obtain the necessary order.
Dauda added that any report submitted by the committee without allowing Adeyemi to appear before it could raise questions about its credibility and legal standing.
