The controversy surrounding the alleged Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) deepened on Tuesday as the House of Representatives intensified its investigation into the disputed agency, issuing a 48-hour ultimatum to Ministries, Departments and Agencies accused of frustrating its probe.
The investigation was launched following allegations that the council operated as a government agency despite questions over its legal foundation, with lawmakers examining how it appeared in official records and whether public institutions facilitated its activities.
The development came amid fresh twists in the matter, including the summons of Foreign Affairs Minister Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu by the House committee, despite the ministry sending a representative to appear before the panel, as well as the withdrawal of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, SAN, from the legal representation of the embattled alleged Director-General of the council, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi.
The House Ad-hoc Committee investigating the alleged establishment, funding and operations of the council warned defaulting MDAs that it would deploy its constitutional powers to compel compliance if they failed to appear before the committee with requested documents and officials.
Chairman of the committee, Yusuf Gagdi, said the refusal of some agencies to honour invitations amounted to a challenge to the oversight powers of the National Assembly and undermined efforts to establish the facts surrounding the controversial body.
Gagdi described the agencies’ failure to appear before the panel as a direct challenge to the constitutional oversight authority of the National Assembly.
The committee said the conduct of the defaulting agencies amounted to “a serious affront” to the House of Representatives and undermined the legislature’s constitutional responsibility to hold public institutions accountable.
He said, “The committee views this conduct as a serious affront to the constitutional oversight powers of the House of Representatives and an unacceptable disregard for the authority of the parliament, which represents the sovereign will of the Nigerian people.”
Gagdi reminded the affected agencies that invitations issued by committees of the House are backed by the Constitution and are legally binding.
He said, “It must be clearly understood that invitations issued by a duly constituted Committee of the House of Representatives are not matters of discretion. They are issued pursuant to the constitutional powers vested in the National Assembly under Sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Compliance is therefore a legal obligation, not an act of courtesy.”
The committee directed all defaulting ministries, departments and agencies to appear before it on Thursday with all relevant officials and documents requested in earlier correspondence.
According to the chairman, the hearing represents the final opportunity for the affected agencies to comply voluntarily with the committee’s directives.
“Thursday is the final opportunity for every defaulting agency to comply voluntarily with the lawful directives of this Committee,” he added.
The committee warned that any agency that fails to honour the invitation without lawful justification would face the full weight of the law.
“Any ministry, department or agency that fails to appear without lawful justification will leave the committee with no alternative but to invoke every constitutional and statutory power available to the House of Representatives to compel compliance and ensure accountability. The Committee will not hesitate to recommend and pursue every sanction permitted by law against any person or institution that deliberately obstructs or frustrates this investigation,” he warned.
Gagdi stressed that the investigation was not aimed at victimising any institution or individual but at establishing the facts surrounding the activities of the PFIPC and protecting the integrity of public administration.
He added, “This investigation is in the national interest. It is not targeted at any individual or institution but is aimed at establishing the facts, protecting the integrity of public administration, safeguarding the rule of law, and ensuring that no public office or institution operates outside the framework of the Constitution and the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
The committee also reaffirmed its commitment to conducting the investigation impartially and professionally.
“No agency of government, regardless of its status or perceived influence, will be permitted to undermine the constitutional authority of the House of Representatives or frustrate the discharge of its legislative responsibilities,” he added.
The warning comes amid the committee’s ongoing investigation into the activities of the PFIPC, an agency whose legal status has come under scrutiny following claims that it operated as a government body without formal establishment. At previous hearings, the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs told lawmakers that it neither recognised the council nor had any official dealings with its alleged Director-General, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi.
The ministry also disclosed that the Office of the National Security Adviser had informed it that both the alleged official and the council were unknown to the Federal Government. The committee is expected to determine whether any public institutions or officials facilitated the activities of the organisation and recommend appropriate legislative or legal action.
The House committee insisted on the minister, Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, appearing before it despite an official representing her at the session on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, the House of Representatives’ ad hoc committee investigating the alleged creation and funding of the controversial agency has continued its public hearings, summoning key government officials and institutions linked to the matter.
During one of the hearings, officials of the Central Bank of Nigeria told lawmakers that accounts reportedly linked to the agency were opened on the directive of the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation but had zero balances and recorded no financial transactions. The disclosure formed part of the committee’s efforts to determine whether public funds were channelled through the controversial agency.
The committee has also received submissions from the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and other key government institutions as lawmakers seek to establish how the agency allegedly gained recognition in official government documents despite concerns over its legal status.
The ongoing legislative inquiry has also examined the circumstances surrounding the agency’s inclusion in government records, the processes leading to the opening of bank accounts in its name, and allegations made by Adeyemi against senior government officials.
Falana’s withdrawal is expected to add another layer of complexity to a case that has attracted nationwide attention and heightened scrutiny of public institutions, government financial processes and the legitimacy of agencies operating within the federal system.
Falana withdraws
Meanwhile, Falana’s withdrawal from Adeyemi’s legal team introduced another dimension to the unfolding controversy, coming as criminal proceedings and separate investigations by security agencies and the legislature continue.
Falana disclosed this in an interview with The PUNCH on Tuesday, stating tersely, “I have withdrawn from the Adeyemi case.”
The senior lawyer, however, did not disclose the reasons behind his decision to discontinue his representation of Adeyemi, whose alleged appointment as Director-General of the controversial agency has remained at the centre of investigations by security agencies and the National Assembly.
A highly placed source familiar with the matter said Falana, who took up the case pro bono, had advised the embattled DG against granting media interviews in order to avoid complications.
Despite the advice, Adeyemi granted an Instagram Live interview with popular social media activist Martins Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan.
The source said the final trigger for Falana’s withdrawal was Adeyemi’s decision to inform him that he would not be appearing in court on July 27, the scheduled date for his arraignment.
Following that decision, Falana withdrew from the case.
Falana’s withdrawal comes barely weeks after he publicly defended Adeyemi over the police handling of the investigation, arguing that the reported arrest of Adeyemi’s father violated constitutional safeguards and was not justified under the law. The senior advocate had maintained that investigators should have obtained the elderly man’s statement at his residence rather than taking him to a police station.
The latest development is expected to raise fresh questions about Adeyemi’s legal strategy as criminal proceedings and multiple investigations into the PFIPC controversy continue.
The scandal erupted following allegations that the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, under which Adeyemi claimed to serve as Director-General, had no legal basis despite reportedly appearing in the 2025 Appropriation Act.
The controversy escalated after allegations of forgery, impersonation and conspiracy were levelled against Adeyemi, allegations he has denied.
The Federal High Court in Abuja is handling criminal proceedings arising from the allegations, while the Nigeria Police Force and other security agencies continue their investigations into the matter.
As of the time of filing this report, neither Adeyemi nor his associates had publicly reacted to Falana’s decision to withdraw from the case.
Sowore challenges ICPC
Also, human rights activist and African Action Congress presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, challenged the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to release the full, unedited video of its interrogation of the President’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, over the investigation into the alleged Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.
Sowore made the demand on Tuesday in a post on X, dismissing the anti-graft agency’s explanation that Gbajabiamila merely honoured an invitation from investigators.
“If the ICPC truly interrogated Tinubu’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, they should release the full, unedited video recording to the public now. All these gimmicks won’t work. We know this is just another smokescreen,” Sowore wrote.
His comments followed a statement by the ICPC denying reports that Gbajabiamila was arrested over the PFIPC scandal.
The commission said the Chief of Staff voluntarily appeared at its headquarters in Abuja on Monday after receiving an invitation from investigators.
According to the ICPC, Gbajabiamila responded to questions relating to the ongoing investigation into the circumstances surrounding the PFIPC before leaving, after making his statement.
punch.ng
FOLLOW US ON:
