Connect with us

News

PFIPC Scandal Update: HoS admits mistakes as Reps uncover irregular approvals

Published

on

Fresh details emerged on Wednesday in the House of Representatives’ investigation into the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), as the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs Didi Walson-Jack, admitted that her office failed to carry out adequate due diligence before granting key approvals to the purported agency, The PUNCH reports.

Also, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation blamed one of its officials for diverting an official letter that allegedly helped sustain the scheme.

The ongoing probe centres on allegations that Prince Adeyemi Adeniyi, who presented himself as the Director-General of the PFIPC, secured official recognition for the body using allegedly fake appointment letters, fabricated legislative documents and other forged government records, despite the agency having no legal backing.

The House committee is investigating how several federal institutions processed and acted on the documents, leading to the purported agency receiving official approvals.

The House Ad-Hoc Committee probing the alleged creation of the PFIPC and the Presidential Economic Advisory Council without legal backing also said it had uncovered what it described as a web of fake appointment letters, fabricated legislative documents and fictitious government offices allegedly used by the promoters to obtain official recognition from federal institutions.

The Accountant-General’s Office identified one of its staff members, Bello Abdullahi, as the official responsible for diverting correspondence that was intended for the Permanent Secretary, State House, while Walson-Jack acknowledged that her office relied on documents that have now been found to be false before approving an authorised establishment and recruitment waiver for the agency.

The revelations emerged as the committee, chaired by the lawmaker representing Kanke/Kanam/Pankshin Federal Constituency of Plateau State, Yusuf Gagdi, intensified its probe into how the purported agency allegedly secured official recognition despite lacking any legal foundation.

Addressing the panel, the Director, Federal Project Financial Department, Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, Joshua Luka, explained the circumstances leading to the issuance of an administrative code to the fake agency.

According to him, the OAGF received what appeared to be an official request from the State House and deliberately addressed its response to the Permanent Secretary rather than directly to the agency.

“As part of our due diligence, what we did was to convey the administrative code to the Permanent Secretary, State House, and not to the so-called agency. The idea was that if it was not genuine, the whole thing would be unravelled,” Luka said.

The committee, however, faulted the explanation after evidence showed that the correspondence never reached the State House Permanent Secretary but was instead received by Mr Adeyemi.

See also  ‘I will kill any terrorist who enters P’Harcourt,’ says Asari-Dokubo

Gagdi also disclosed that investigations had established that the Directorate of Administration and Support Services, which appeared on the correspondence, did not exist in the State House.

“There is no Directorate of Administration and Support Services in the State House. That office does not exist,” he said.

He criticised officials of the Accountant-General’s Office for allowing the suspect to receive official correspondence meant for another government office.

“You allowed the fraudulent DG to come and pick the letter from your office instead of allowing someone from the Permanent Secretary’s office to receive it. If the letter had reached the Permanent Secretary, the fraud would have been unraveled immediately,” he said.

Luka, however, insisted that the failure resulted from the actions of a single official rather than an institutional breakdown.

“The problem here was not an office lapse; it was an individual lapse. Somebody was supposed to deliver that letter to the Permanent Secretary, State House, and it was not delivered there,” he explained.

When pressed to reveal the identity of the individual responsible, Luka mentioned Bello, who sat on a row behind him, at Hearing Room 028.

Bello admitted giving the letter to Adeyemi but his attempt to explain the circumstances was shut down by Gagdi.

HoS admits failure

Appearing before the panel, Walson-Jack conceded that the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation acted on documents which had now been established to be false.

“We now, having seen all the facts and observed all the documents, concede that we ought to have carried out more due diligence in the discharge of the duties of the office in issuing an authorised establishment and a recruitment waiver to the PEAC/PFIPC,” she told the panel.

She explained that officials of the purported agency attended the 2025 Annual Manpower Budget Defence, presenting themselves as representatives of a newly established federal agency and tendering what appeared to be an Establishment Act alongside a letter appointing a Director-General.

According to her, existing civil service procedures require newly established agencies seeking to recruit staff to submit an enabling Act, the appointment letter of the chief executive and other relevant documents before an authorised establishment and provisional recruitment waiver are granted.

She said her office processed the request based on the documents presented, describing the incident as unprecedented.

“In over almost a century of the Federal Civil Service, we have never encountered a situation like the current one. Criminals always try to be a step ahead of law enforcement,” she said.

However, when subjected to further questioning, Walson-Jack admitted that the supposed Establishment Act was clearly not genuine.

See also  Police yet to receive court order on tinted-glass permits – FPRO

“I requested to see the documents myself and I saw that the Establishment Act was not really an authentic Act. I have almost 30 years of legal practice experience and immediately I saw it, I knew it was not real,” she stated.

She also questioned the authenticity of the letter purportedly issued by the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President appointing the alleged Director-General.

When asked to compare the different documents signed by Femi Gbajabiamila to the letter appointing Adeyemi, the Head of Service admitted that the signature on the appointment letter was different from those on other documents.

“I’m not a forensic expert, but I can clearly see that the signatures are not the same,” she added.

Responding, Gagdi disclosed that forensic experts from the Nigeria Police Force had already confirmed that the signatures on the document did not match those of the genuine signatory.

“The Police Forensic Department has already analysed the signatures and confirmed that those signatures are not the same. In fact, according to them, there was not even an attempt to imitate the signature,” Gagdi said.

He maintained that both the appointment letter and the purported Establishment Act were fake.

“You have clearly stated that you acted on false documents. You have now established, just like we have, that the letter of appointment of the so-called DG is not only forged, it is fake.

“If something is forged, there will be an attempt to imitate the signature. But in this case, the signatures are completely different. So, I will not call it forged; I will say it is fake,” Gagdi declared.

The committee further observed that the document presented as an Act of the National Assembly lacked the basic features of valid legislation.

“Our Acts have citation numbers, Supreme Court numbers, Gazette numbers and Gazette titles. The Act presented here has none of those features,” the chairman added.

Despite admitting shortcomings, Walson-Jack maintained that officials followed established procedures based on the documents submitted.

“Everything was done in accordance with the practice in the office. Out of the 88 ministries, departments and agencies processed, we are really surprised that we were unable to detect that PEAC/PFIPC had actually given us a false Establishment Act and what has now been proved to be a false letter of appointment,” she added.

She assured the committee that her office would strengthen its internal processes.

“We take full responsibility and we will definitely review our processes to make them more fraud-proof,” she said.

Adeyemi’s absence

Also appearing before the committee, Deputy Commissioner of Police Olufemi Akinola, Deputy Director of the Nigeria Police Force National Cybercrime Centre, represented the Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu.

See also  Terrorists dare Trump, kill scores

The House committee had, during its sitting on Monday, directed Disu to produce Adeniyi Adeyemi before the panel by noon on Wednesday.

He explained that Adeyemi could not be produced before the committee as directed because he remained in lawful custody under a subsisting court order.

“The Nigeria Police Force may not be able to produce the suspect as requested in view of the subsisting warrant. The Nigeria Police Force recognises the constitutional oversight powers of the National Assembly and remains committed to cooperating with the committee in the discharge of its mandate.

“However, in this case, it will be appreciated if a reproduction warrant could be sought from a court of competent jurisdiction to enable the police to comply with this request,” Akinola said.

The committee accepted the explanation and indicated that it would take the necessary legal steps to secure the appropriate court order.

Tense proceedings

Wednesday’s hearing was marked by tense exchanges between the committee and senior government officials.

Throughout the proceedings, Gagdi dominated the session, frequently interrupting witnesses while they were responding to questions and, at one point, stopping another member of the committee from making contributions during the session.

Before the member could make his contribution, Gagdi hit the gavel, leaving the panel member with no option but to keep his peace.

Several officials were unable to complete their explanations before being cut short.

The committee said it had concluded most of the fact-finding phase of its investigation and would present preliminary findings to the public next week before submitting its final report to the House of Representatives after lawmakers resume from recess.

The House of Representatives constituted the Ad-Hoc Committee following allegations that the PFIPC and the PEAC operated as federal agencies without any legal foundation.

Previous testimonies by the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, the Budget Office, the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Nigeria Police Force and other government institutions indicated that the agency secured official recognition using documents that investigators now believe were fabricated.

The committee is expected to recommend legislative and legal measures against all individuals found to have participated in the alleged fraud, as well as institutional reforms aimed at preventing similar incidents in the future.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Russia threatens to use nuclear weapons on NATO as tensions rise in the Baltic

Published

on

Russia has issued a stern warning to NATO, stating it is fully prepared to use nuclear weapons if the Western alliance attempts to isolate or cut off Kaliningrad, the heavily militarized Russian exclave bordered by Poland and Lithuania.

In a formal diplomatic document transmitted to NATO, Moscow condemned the alliance’s actions as a “dangerous and reckless course” carrying “high risks of the outbreak of a direct armed conflict.” The communication explicitly warned that escalation could trigger “Russian strikes against decision-making centers in the alliance’s member states right from the outset.”

“Russia will be ready to use the entire arsenal of forces and capabilities at its disposal, including nuclear weapons, in order to defend its territory should NATO countries undertake any attempt aimed at isolating the Kaliningrad Region from the rest of the country,” the note stated.

Russia threatens to use nuclear weapons on NATO as tensions rise in the Baltic
The warning underscores mounting friction over Kaliningrad, a strategic territory slightly larger than Connecticut that serves as a vital Russian military outpost on the Baltic Sea.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova echoed the sentiment online, condemning statements from Western officials which she characterized as manifestations of “Russophobia” and a readiness for war.

“If Europe attacks Russia, it will be a completely different sort of war – a very short war,” Zakharova wrote, adding a call for European leaders to heed Moscow’s warnings. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the series of diplomatic notes issued across European embassies as necessary reminders directed at “hotheads in Europe.”

See also  Police yet to receive court order on tinted-glass permits – FPRO

 

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte firmly rejected the threats during a defense conference hosted by Euronews in Brussels, reiterating the alliance’s defensive posture and urging Moscow to cease its rhetoric.

“We are a defensive alliance. And stop the nuclear threats. This is absolutely not called for and not helpful,” Rutte said, noting that alliance activities pose no threat to Russian territorial integrity.

When asked if the threat of nuclear deployment in the Baltic region was imminent, Rutte dismissed the prospect: “No, it’s not. Putin knows that he can never win against NATO, so I don’t take this that seriously.”

Security analysts warn that the situation highlights a dangerous trajectory of mutual miscalculation. Nikolai Sokov, a Vienna-based nuclear analyst and former Russian diplomat, noted that escalating Western support for Ukraine risks pushing both sides past diplomatic thresholds.

“They expect more action, including a blockade of the Baltic Sea—just below the level of war in European calculation, but for them this will be open war. I see a risk of mutual miscalculation,” Sokov observed.

While Western governments continue to accuse Moscow of orchestrating a broader “hybrid war” across Europe through acts of sabotage and cyber interference, allegations that the Kremlin strongly denies, senior defense officials view the latest nuclear posturing as an unprecedented escalation unseen since the Cold War.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

News

SEE FULL LIST: Five EU nations plan deportation centres in Africa

Published

on

Five European Union countries are moving ahead with plans to establish centres outside the bloc for migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected, with the first facility expected to begin operations in Africa in 2027.

German broadcaster DW reports on Thursday that the five countries are working on what they describe as “return hubs” for people who have been ordered to leave the EU.

Rwanda and Uganda have repeatedly been mentioned by diplomatic sources and European media as possible locations, but neither country has been confirmed as the host.

The five countries involved:

1. Greece

Greece is leading the initiative and has indicated that the first return hub could become operational in the second half of 2027.

Its Migration Minister, Thanos Plevris, said an African country had already been selected, although its identity had not been disclosed.

Greece is also expected to assume the rotating presidency of the EU Council in the second half of 2027.

2. Germany

Germany is part of the five-country group pushing for agreements with countries outside the EU to establish return hubs.

German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt previously said the group wanted to reach an agreement with third countries that would enable the establishment of the facilities.

Germany has also participated in discussions on the legal framework governing transfers of migrants who have no legal right to remain in the EU.

3. Austria

Austria is the third member of the group pursuing the return-hub arrangement.

Its Interior Minister, Gerhard Karner, has argued that the project could help reduce irregular migration and dangerous journeys to Europe.

See also  INEC chair: Security check begins, Council of State to meet

Austria has separately reached a migration and readmission agreement with Uzbekistan, although that agreement does not itself establish a return hub.

4. Denmark

Denmark has previously explored the possibility of transferring asylum seekers to a third country.

In 2021, Copenhagen passed legislation allowing such arrangements and held negotiations with Rwanda over a reception centre. The talks were suspended in 2023 after legal and logistical difficulties emerged.

Denmark has since shifted towards pursuing third-country arrangements together with other European countries.

5. Netherlands

The Netherlands is the fifth member of the group.

Dutch Migration Minister Bart van den Brink has said the proposed facilities should not be viewed as detention camps, but as places offering migrants who cannot remain in Europe another option while return arrangements are made.

The five countries agreed in September to step up discussions with potential partner countries and work towards establishing the hubs.

Plevris said Greece had selected an African country to host the facility but did not name it publicly.

The five countries, known as the “Group of Five”, have been working on a model under which migrants whose asylum applications have been finally rejected would be transferred to facilities outside the EU while arrangements for their return to their countries of origin are made.

The countries have stressed that the facilities would be open centres rather than detention camps.

Responsibility for people transferred to the hubs would remain with the participating European countries, rather than being handed over to the African host country.

The project is also expected to be financed by the five European countries, while organisations including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organisation for Migration could monitor operations.

See also  Terrorists dare Trump, kill scores

The plan follows several unsuccessful efforts by European countries to outsource asylum processing or deportation arrangements.

The most prominent was Britain’s Rwanda scheme, under which the Conservative government sought to send asylum seekers arriving irregularly in the UK to Rwanda.

The British Supreme Court ultimately ruled the policy unlawful, citing concerns that people sent to Rwanda faced a real risk of being returned to countries where they could face persecution or inhumane treatment.

Italy has also operated migrant centres in Albania since 2024. Italian courts initially blocked transfers to the centres, while one facility has subsequently been used as a deportation centre for men whose asylum applications were definitively rejected.

The Italian scheme has involved significant costs, with DW reporting that the expenditure is expected to exceed €670m by 2028.

A Reuters report published on September 30 said Rwanda had held preliminary discussions with some EU member states about potentially hosting transferred migrants, but that no agreement had been reached.

Source: punchng.com

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

News

Elon Musk returns to US govt for Pentagon war study

Published

on

Tech billionaire Elon Musk will make a return to officially advising US President Donald Trump’s government by co-leading what the Pentagon called a study on the future of war.

Musk served as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) before departing in May 2025, having publicly fallen out with Trump.

In a speech at the Quantico military base, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said “Project Meridian” will be “an effort led by America’s best minds to study the future of warfare”.

“We are leveraging a unique source of American advantage, one our adversaries do not have: our innovators, our senior leaders and our technologists,” Hegseth said.

Musk will be a co-leader of Project Meridian alongside Palmer Luckey, the 34-year-old co-founder of defense technology company Anduril Industries, and Newt Gingrich, the 83-year-old Republican former House speaker.

Musk threw his support behind Trump and helped his return to the White House, but the men later had a high-profile blow-up over the president’s spending legislation.

He later resumed giving to Republican causes, including multimillion-dollar donations to individual candidates and conservative political groups.

Hegseth said the project’s purpose is to “creatively look to the future and identify the domains that we must conquer and capabilities we must master”.

Project members will include hand-picked private sector leaders and subject matter experts from across the innovation, academic and policy ecosystems.

Hegseth said he has directed Project Meridian’s findings to be completed and submitted within 120 days.

AFP

Source: punchng.com

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

See also  DSS DG bans operatives from arresting people over civil matters
Continue Reading

Trending