The Chairman of the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), Yusuf Gagdi, has again come under fire as the panel prepares to conclude its assignment.
Barring any sudden twist, the committee will conclude its assignment in the next couple of weeks ahead of the presentation of its report to the House in plenary.
On Monday, a member of the House faulted the decision to appoint Gagdi the chairman of the probe panel.
According to him, it was the Plateau lawmaker (Gagdi) who brought a motion on the floor of the House, praying the Green Chamber to investigate the alleged agency.
He said, “Where have you seen this before that the member who brought an issue for investigation will be made the chair of the committee set up to probe the issues raised in that motion? I am not saying it is in our Rules Book, but it is definitely not a convention. This is where I think the Speaker missed it.
“In every investigation, there is a complainant and a respondent. If the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, wrote to the police in October 2025 concerning the man now in detention, why not invite him to come and adopt those letters?”
The lawmaker, who pleaded anonymity because he did not want to preempt the outcome of the probe, also faulted claims by the panel that signatures of Gbajabiamila in documents tendered before the committee were different from the appointment letter issued to Adeyemi, noting some highly placed persons use more than one signature.
“Again, the chairman declared last week that the signature contained in the letter appointing the ‘fake’ DG is different from those in other letters written by Femi. Is this the first time some important personalities will have two or more different signatures?” he asked.
He also accused the panel of carrying out what he called a one-sided investigation, saying, “They keep saying the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission is handling the criminal aspect of the probe.
Does that stop the committee from inviting Femi for questioning?”
He added that Gagdi, in one of the committee’s sittings last week, moderated the session in a one-man show style, even shutting out a panel member who attempted to ask what seemed an important question.
Last Thursday, the Plateau lawmaker invited the House press corps for continuation of proceedings only to fail to show up, without a formal communication to the leadership of the corps.
All these have left many wondering what the outcome of the investigation would be.
Speaking exclusively with The PUNCH, a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress and former Secretary General of the Arewa Consultative Forum, Anthony Sani, said Nigerians expected a comprehensive probe featuring everyone mentioned in the scandal.
He said, “The public expects the probe to be thorough and dispel any misconceptions. The death of the alleged intermediary, Dolapo Tanimola, should be of concern to the probe panel.
“I suggest that all circumstances which can lead to the truth should not be left unturned.”
According to him, “The circumstances which led to the death of the intermediary Tanimola should be looked into by the probe panel.”
In a separate interview with our correspondent, the Executive Director, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, Ibrahim Rafsanjani, said the PFIPC scandal raised fundamental questions about the integrity of Nigeria’s public institutions, budgeting system, security architecture and presidential bureaucracy.
He said, “CISLAC is not sufficiently impressed with the depth, independence and comprehensiveness of the investigation conducted so far by the House ad hoc committee.
“A legislative investigation of this magnitude must go beyond establishing whether an appointment letter was forged or whether the disputed agency had a lawful basis.
“It must determine how the entity penetrated multiple layers of government, who facilitated its operations, who failed in their responsibilities, whether public funds were released or expended, and whether politically exposed persons or senior public officials played any direct or indirect role.
“We are concerned that the committee failed to rigorously question police investigators regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Dolapo Tanimola and that represents a major gap.
“Mr Tanimola has been publicly identified in allegations as an intermediary who allegedly received N400m purportedly for onward delivery to the Chief of Staff to the President, Mr Femi Gbajabiamila.
“The seriousness of this issue required the committee to demand a detailed account from the police regarding the circumstances, location, date and cause of his death; the status of any autopsy, coroner’s inquiry or forensic examination; persons who last contacted or met him; and whether his death affected the collection or preservation of evidence.”
The CISLAC boss further noted that a credible investigation “cannot simply avoid a controversial death connected to a central allegation,” stressing that “failure to interrogate this aspect creates suspicion, weakens public confidence and leaves a potentially important evidentiary trail unexplored.”
He further noted that “The report that the committee was under pressure to invite Mr Gbajabiamila demonstrates the public expectation that no individual should be considered too highly placed to answer relevant questions.
“An invitation would not amount to a declaration of guilt; it would provide an opportunity to clarify the record and demonstrate that legislative investigation applies to all.”
On the huge amount that allegedly exchanged hands, Rafsanjani said the committee should have demanded evidence concerning the alleged source, movement and intended recipient of the N400m.
“This should include bank statements, withdrawal records, payment instructions, communications, telephone records and evidence from financial intelligence agencies.
“Without following the money, the investigation risks becoming an examination of forged paperwork rather than a comprehensive inquiry into possible fraud, bribery, influence-peddling or abuse of office,” he added.
Citing Gagdi’s remark that the committee was about to close its assignment last week, Rafsanjani said CISLAC remained opposed to the declaration.
“The argument that the disputed appointment letter issued to Adeyemi was fake may address one part of the matter, but it does not answer how the purported council acquired institutional recognition and access within government.
“Forgery may explain the initial entry point, but it cannot by itself explain failures across several government institutions. The committee must avoid presenting the forgery finding as a complete explanation of the scandal,” he added.
CISLAC called on the House committee not to close the investigation merely to meet an administrative deadline. Where critical questions remain unanswered, the House should extend the committee’s mandate and compel the attendance of all relevant witnesses.
In its recommendation, the civil society organisation urged the panel to “invite every principal actor, regardless of political position, to give evidence under oath.”
It also urged the committee to direct the police to “provide a comprehensive report on the death of Mr Tanimola, including medical, forensic and investigative records, while respecting the rights and dignity of his family.”
It further urged the committee to “trace the alleged N400m through financial records and independently verify all claims concerning its source, custody and intended destination.”
Lastly, the organisation urged the panel to “conduct a forensic audit of every account linked to the disputed council and determine whether public funds were released or expended.”
In his contribution, a public affairs analyst, Mr Jackson Ojo, noted, “If the allegations are true, the transaction itself would constitute a critical piece of evidence.
“It would serve as an exhibit and a material fact in establishing what transpired. Unfortunately, that evidence appears to have been overlooked, and no serious effort was made to fully examine it.”
He also expressed worry over what he called the absence of the principal figure at the centre of the allegations during the investigation.
“How do you conduct a thorough probe when there are allegations and counter-allegations, yet the individual who made or is directly connected to the allegations is not present to provide testimony?” he asked.
In his words, “A credible investigation requires hearing from all relevant parties. The person making the allegations should have been invited to present evidence and clarify claims.
“Likewise, those accused or implicated should have been allowed to respond and provide their own account of events.
“For any probe to be fair, transparent and comprehensive, investigators must hear directly from the individuals involved and examine all available documentary evidence.
“Without this, questions will inevitably remain about the thoroughness and credibility of the process,” he added.
For three weeks, the 12-man panel grilled top government functionaries including the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs Didi Walson-Jack; the Head of Banking Services at the Central Bank of Nigeria, Hamisu Abdullahi; the Director General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Tanimu Yakubu; the Director, Federal Project Finance Department, Joshua Luka and top police officers representing the Inspector General of Police, Olatunji Disu.
Throughout its sittings, the Gagdi-led panel failed to bring before it for questioning the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, accused by the self-acclaimed Director General of the PFIPC, Adeyemi Adeniyi, of collecting N400m through a deceased proxy, Dolapo Tanimola.
Recall that Tanimola allegedly lost his life in a fire incident at Kachi Hotel, Utako, Abuja, where the N400m allegedly exchanged hands.
According to multiple reports, the said hotel was said to have been pulled down by armed individuals, leaving no room for the police to retrieve Closed Circuit Television for examination.
On Sunday, Adeyemi, through his legal counsel, Festus Akhigbe, dared the committee to activate the necessary legal instrument to bring him for questioning, even as he alleged he was being scapegoated by the investigating team.
“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 (audi alteram partem),” the statement read.
When contacted, the EFCC’s spokesman, Dele Oyewale, could not be reached as all calls to his line were not answered.
He has also yet to respond to the message sent to him on the matter.
However, a senior EFCC official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to comment publicly, said all forfeited properties remained government assets and could only be transferred to government agencies on the directive of the Presidency.
The source explained that whenever forfeited assets were allocated to a government institution, the arrangement followed due process and any payment arising from such transactions was made directly into the CBN.
“All properties are forfeited to the government. Any property that the EFCC is giving to a government agency is usually on the instruction of the Presidency.
“When some properties are given, if it is an outright purchase, payment is made into the CBN account. If it is on a lease, the rent is also paid into the CBN account. There is nothing hidden there,” the official said.
The clarification followed allegations by lawyers representing Adeyemi, who, in a statement issued on Sunday, claimed that the EFCC had allocated a property to the council, requested N300m as processing consideration and presented a plaque of recognition to its leadership.
The legal team cited the allegations while defending Adeyemi against claims that PFIPC is a non-existent government agency.
The EFCC source, however, insisted that the commission did not privately dispose of forfeited assets or demand unofficial payments in the course of transferring such properties to government agencies.
The controversy is the latest development in the ongoing dispute surrounding PFIPC, whose operations have come under scrutiny amid investigations into its legal status and activities.
punch.ng
FOLLOW US ON:
