The House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee investigating the controversy surrounding the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council is yet to decide where it will question the council’s self-appointed Director-General, Adeniyi Adeyemi, a source familiar with the committee’s proceedings has disclosed.
The development comes as Adeyemi insisted that his lawyers and journalists must be present before he submits to questioning by the House committee.
The committee, chaired by the lawmaker representing Kanke/Kanam/Pankshin Federal Constituency of Plateau State, Yusuf Gagdi, is probing how the PFIPC secured official office accommodation within the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja and received a budgetary allocation of more than N1.32bn in the 2026 Appropriation Act despite allegedly having no legal existence.
The investigation has attracted significant public attention following allegations that the council operated within government structures despite lacking legal recognition, raising concerns about possible lapses in public financial management and institutional oversight.
Adeyemi, who has been in police custody over the controversy surrounding the council, is expected to appear before the committee this week, following testimonies from several senior government officials.
However, as of Sunday, the venue for the much-anticipated session remained unsettled.
The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to discuss the committee’s proceedings with the media, confirmed the development in response to an inquiry by The PUNCH.
Asked whether the committee had chosen a venue for Adeyemi’s appearance, the source simply replied, “No decision yet.”
The development followed the committee’s hearings with key government officials, including the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack; the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Tanimu Yakubu; the Director of Banking Services at the Central Bank of Nigeria, Hamisu Abdullahi; and representatives of the Inspector-General of Police.
The officials’ testimonies reportedly raised questions about how Adeyemi allegedly presented himself as the head of the PFIPC and secured recognition and access within government circles.
Adeyemi had, through his lawyers, indicated his willingness to appear before the committee publicly and respond to questions concerning the allegations.
However, Gagdi said the committee would determine the venue for the session at a later date.
Meanwhile, the Coalition of United Political Parties has rejected the findings of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission on the PFIPC controversy, describing the investigation as inadequate and calling for a broader and transparent inquiry.
In an interview with our correspondent, CUPP spokesperson, Agu Bryan, said the ICPC’s report, which reportedly cleared the Presidency of wrongdoing while indicting Adeniyi Adeyemi, failed to answer critical questions about how an allegedly non-existent government agency was able to operate at such a high level.
“The ICPC probe of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council which exonerated the Presidency and indicted Adeniyi Adeyemi is nothing short of a charade,” Bryan said.
He argued that the report appeared to portray Adeyemi as having operated almost entirely alone, despite the scale of activities attributed to him.
According to Bryan, such an operation could not have continued without assistance or enabling actions by officials within government institutions.
“As Nigerians, we know that someone could not have operated an alleged high-profile agency of such magnitude without enablers, either within the Presidency or across the government agencies involved,” he said.
Bryan called for a broader examination of the roles allegedly played by government institutions referenced in Adeyemi’s correspondence, including the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.
He particularly cited the testimony of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack, that her office failed to conduct due diligence on some of the documents associated with the controversial council.
The coalition also questioned how the PFIPC allegedly found its way into the national budget if, as reported by the ICPC, it had no legal foundation.
CUPP said the National Assembly and relevant government ministries owed Nigerians an explanation over how funds were appropriated to an organisation whose legal status had allegedly not been established.
“The National Assembly, particularly the House of Representatives, which appropriated funds to an agency that, according to the investigation, never existed as a creation of law, also owes Nigerians an explanation,” Bryan said.
He asked who within the Ministry of Budget and National Planning processed the budget line attributed to the PFIPC and what verification mechanisms were applied before public funds were appropriated.
CUPP also raised questions about the alleged recruitment of hundreds of staff and the extent to which Adeyemi was granted access to official government activities.
Bryan said the issues went beyond determining whether Adeyemi forged documents, arguing that investigators should establish how he allegedly gained access to government processes and institutions.
The controversy escalated after investigators reportedly established that a signature attributed to the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, was forged.
CUPP said the finding should prompt investigators to examine other official documents and correspondence allegedly used by Adeyemi.
“It is commendable that the House and the Police have established that the signature of the Chief of Staff to the President was allegedly forged. But that raises another critical question: how many other documents, official correspondences and signatures allegedly used by Adeyemi were also forged?” Bryan asked.
He said Nigerians deserved to know the full extent of the alleged deception and whether officials responsible for verifying the credentials of individuals dealing with public institutions failed in their duties.
The coalition further questioned how the PFIPC allegedly acquired sufficient official recognition to participate in government processes and appear in the national budget.
“How did a supposedly non-existent agency attain such a level of official recognition and attention that it found its way into the national budget?” he asked.
CUPP also called for Adeyemi to be given a fair opportunity to defend himself before the House committee, arguing that a transparent confrontation with the evidence could help determine whether other individuals or institutions were involved.
“Was Adeyemi given fair hearing thus far? Has he been given the privilege to appear before the Yusuf Gagdi-led Ad hoc Committee of the House of Representatives probing the matter to be interrogated and directly answer questions?” Bryan said.
He invoked the legal principle nemo judex in causa sua—that no person should be a judge in his own cause—in arguing that the investigation should be conducted independently and transparently.
Bryan said anything short of an open and impartial investigation would fail to satisfy public expectations.
He also criticised the ICPC’s handling of the matter and called for independent professional bodies to be considered if the Federal Government was genuinely interested in establishing the facts.
“If President Tinubu is determined to unravel the truth, independent organisations or bodies like the NBA, West African Bar Association or international or private investigators should be allowed to come in and take over the investigation,” Bryan said.
He accused federal security and anti-corruption agencies of lacking sufficient independence to investigate the controversy objectively, a claim the agencies have not accepted.
The House committee’s inquiry follows mounting concerns over how Adeyemi allegedly operated the PFIPC, secured government recognition and participated in official engagements despite questions over the organisation’s legal status.
The controversy has also drawn attention to the roles of several government institutions whose officials allegedly interacted with Adeyemi or processed documents connected to the council.
The committee is expected to hear directly from Adeyemi as it seeks to establish how the PFIPC was created, how it operated, who recognised it and whether public funds were allocated or expended in connection with its activities.
His appearance before the committee could therefore prove significant in determining whether the alleged scheme was the work of an individual or involved officials and institutions within government.
Adeyemi demands media
Adeyemi, through his lawyer, Ademola Oyedokun, had on Wednesday rejected the House committee’s decision to question him at an undisclosed location while he remains in police custody.
The committee subsequently attempted to question him on Thursday, but Adeyemi declined to respond to its questions, prompting the lawmakers to reschedule the interrogation for Monday.
However, a family source said Adeyemi had informed the committee that he would only submit to questioning if journalists and his legal representatives were allowed to be present.
“They eventually rescheduled to Monday and my brother told them that when they are coming, they should come with the media, otherwise he will not grant them audience.
“Initially, they agreed to come with the media, but later they said they would not be coming with any media. They said if he refuses to grant them audience, they will go ahead and conclude their investigation and it will be said that he was the one who failed to grant them audience,” the source said.
The development came a day after Adeyemi’s family raised concerns over an attempt by members of the House committee to question him in police custody without his lawyers present.
Adeyemi’s brother, Peter, alleged that the detained promoter declined to answer questions because his legal representatives were absent.
“The Reps committee came and wanted to interrogate him, but he refused. They are still there trying to make him talk without any of his lawyers being present. We are crying out loud so that the right thing would be done.
“He has stated that he wants to be quizzed the same way others who have accused him have spoken. It’s not that he is not willing to state his side of the story,” he said.
When contacted on whether the police were aware of the committee’s proposed visit and whether the lawmakers would be granted access to Adeyemi, the police spokesperson, Ani Ineidu, said visitors would be allowed provided they met the necessary requirements.
“Yes, if they have necessary documents. I’m not aware if they have relevant documents or authorisation, but if they fulfil the conditions, everybody who is under police custody has a right to visitors.
“So, in a case like this, if they have that right, they will be granted access,” Ineidu said.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Oyedokun said his client welcomed the House investigation into the alleged establishment and operations of the PFIPC but opposed what he described as a closed-door interrogation.
“We have read that the committee intends to interview our client at an undisclosed date and place. We ask it, respectfully, to think again.
“Everyone else in this matter has been heard in public, and what has been said about our client was said in public. He should be allowed to answer in the same place it was said,” the lawyer stated.
The committee had on Tuesday announced that it would question Adeyemi at an undisclosed location while he remains in police custody.
The Chairman of the committee, Yusuf Gagdi, said the arrangement was necessary to avoid interfering with ongoing investigations by the Nigeria Police Force, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission.
Gagdi said the committee had invited Adeyemi but was informed by the police that he remained in custody pursuant to a court order.
He added that the National Assembly would not act in a manner that undermined the judiciary or violated the principle of separation of powers, stressing that lawmakers lacked the authority to override an existing court order directing Adeyemi’s detention.
The committee is investigating allegations surrounding the creation and operations of the PFIPC, including claims of impersonation, forgery, financial impropriety and the unlawful use of government facilities and official insignia.
Source: punchng.com
FOLLOW US ON:
