The detained promoter of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), Adeniyi Adeyemi, has set conditions for appearing before the House of Representatives committee investigating the council.

Adeyemi reportedly wants his lawyers and members of the media present before he will submit to questioning by the committee, which is investigating how the PFIPC allegedly secured government recognition, operated from the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja and received more than ₦1.32 billion in the 2026 Appropriation Act despite questions over its legal status.

As of Sunday, the committee had yet to decide where Adeyemi would appear before lawmakers.

A source familiar with the proceedings confirmed the uncertainty, simply stating, “No decision yet” when asked whether a venue had been fixed for the interrogation.

Why The House Is Investigating PFIPC

The committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, has already heard from several senior government officials as it seeks to establish how Adeyemi allegedly presented himself as the head of the PFIPC and gained access to government institutions and processes.

Those who have appeared before the lawmakers include the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack; Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Tanimu Yakubu; Director of Banking Services at the Central Bank of Nigeria, Hamisu Abdullahi; and representatives of the Inspector-General of Police.

The testimonies form part of the committee’s wider effort to determine how the controversial council allegedly operated within government structures.

Adeyemi remains in police custody and had previously indicated through his lawyers that he was willing to answer questions from the lawmakers. However, he reportedly objected to being questioned privately.

Adeyemi’s Lawyer Demands Public Hearing

His lawyer, Ademola Oyedokun, urged the committee to hold the interrogation publicly, arguing that allegations against his client had already been made in public.

“We have read that the committee intends to interview our client at an undisclosed date and place. We ask it, respectfully, to think again,” Oyedokun said.

“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,” he added.

The committee had earlier explained that it planned to question Adeyemi at an undisclosed location because he was still in police custody.

Gagdi said the arrangement was designed to ensure that the National Assembly’s investigation did not interfere with separate investigations being conducted by the Nigeria Police Force, EFCC and ICPC.

He also noted that lawmakers could not disregard the court order under which Adeyemi was being detained.

Family Raises Concern Over Lawyers’ Absence

Adeyemi’s family had earlier accused members of the House committee of attempting to question him while he was in police custody without his lawyers present.

His brother, Peter, said Adeyemi declined to answer questions because his legal representatives were unavailable.

“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 said.

According to him, Adeyemi was not avoiding the investigation but wanted an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him in the same manner they had been presented publicly.

A family source later disclosed that Adeyemi added the presence of journalists to his conditions for appearing before the committee.

“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,” the source said.

The source alleged that the committee initially agreed to allow the media but later changed its position.

Meanwhile, police spokesperson Ani Ineidu said people in custody could receive visitors 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.”

CUPP Calls For Broader PFIPC Investigation

While lawmakers prepare to hear directly from Adeyemi, the Coalition of United Political Parties (CUPP) has criticised the reported findings of the ICPC investigation, describing the probe as inadequate.

The coalition argued that the central issue remains how an organisation allegedly lacking a legal foundation was able to operate within government circles and receive a multibillion-naira budgetary allocation.

CUPP spokesperson Agu Bryan described the ICPC probe as “nothing short of a charade”, alleging that investigators placed too much emphasis on Adeyemi while failing to establish whether government officials enabled his activities.

“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,” Bryan said.

He called for greater scrutiny of institutions allegedly referenced in documents and correspondence linked to the PFIPC, 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.

Bryan also pointed to testimony suggesting that the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation failed to conduct adequate due diligence on some documents associated with the council.

How Did PFIPC Get Into Nigeria’s 2026 Budget?

One of the major questions raised by CUPP concerns how the PFIPC appeared in the 2026 national budget.

The coalition questioned how an organisation that investigators reportedly found had not been legally established could obtain a budget line and receive an allocation exceeding ₦1.32 billion.

“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 which officials within the Ministry of Budget and National Planning processed the allocation and what verification procedures were followed before the funds were appropriated.

The coalition also questioned the alleged recruitment of hundreds of workers and the extent of access Adeyemi reportedly enjoyed within government institutions.

Bryan said investigators should go beyond allegations of document forgery and establish how Adeyemi allegedly navigated government agencies and processes for an extended period.

Alleged Forged Signature Raises More Questions

The controversy took another turn after investigators reportedly established that a signature attributed to the President’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, was forged.

Bryan argued that the finding should prompt a wider examination of other documents and official 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?” he asked.

Fair Hearing Becomes Key Issue

CUPP also questioned whether Adeyemi had been given sufficient opportunity to respond directly to the allegations against him.

“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 asked.

He referenced the legal principle nemo judex in causa sua, arguing that the investigation should be conducted independently and transparently.

Bryan further called for independent professional organisations, including the Nigerian Bar Association, West African Bar Association, or private and international investigators to participate if the Federal Government wants a comprehensive resolution.

“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,” he said.

The allegations and criticisms directed at the security and anti-corruption agencies have not been accepted by the agencies.

With Adeyemi expected to face the lawmakers, attention is now focused on what he will tell the committee about the PFIPC’s establishment, its access to government facilities, its alleged involvement in official processes and how it secured its ₦1.32 billion budgetary allocation.

A farmer in Katsina-Ala Local Government Area of Benue State has reportedly abandoned his farmland after suspected bandits demanded ₦500,000 before allowing him to fully harvest his crops.

The incident occurred in Mbagena Council Ward, an area where residents have allegedly experienced repeated attacks and extortion by armed groups.

The farmer’s son, John James, a 300-level student of Benue State University, disclosed the incident during a capacity-building workshop on Promoting Safety and Security Rights, Accountability and Access to Justice, organised by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) in Makurdi.

According to James, the attackers invaded his parents’ residence at night about two weeks ago and demanded ₦500,000 from his father, who combines farming with public service.

James said the gunmen initially gave his father three days to produce the money but later extended the deadline to one week after he explained that he needed to harvest his crops to raise the demanded amount.

The crops on the farm reportedly included groundnuts, beniseed and soyabeans.

“About two weeks ago, terrorists invaded his compound in the night where he was sleeping alongside my mother after work. They charged him to pay a ransom of N500,000. My father pleaded with them because there was nothing at the moment. He had to plead with them for our lives because contacting the security will only worsen the situation.”

Farmer’s Wife Allegedly Abducted and Tortured

James said the situation escalated when the attackers returned while his father was away attending a burial ceremony in Katsina-Ala town.

He alleged that the gunmen abducted his mother, accusing the farmer of intentionally delaying payment of the demanded ransom.

Although she was eventually released after one of the abductors reportedly intervened, James said she was subjected to torture during her captivity.

“She was freed but not without being tortured. As I talk to you now, my mother is suffering emotionally and physically from the pains she suffered in the course of the torture,” he said.

₦200,000 Payment Fails to End Threats

James said his father eventually raised ₦200,000 with the help of friends and relatives and delivered the money to the attackers at midnight last Thursday.

However, the payment reportedly did not bring an end to the threats.

According to James, the bandits insisted that his father must pay the outstanding ₦300,000 before he would be allowed unrestricted access to his farmland.

“When my father returned and handed them the money, they said it was not enough, that he had to complete it to N500,000 before he would be allowed to harvest anything from his farm,” he said.

The partial payment reportedly enabled the farmer to harvest only some of his produce, while the remaining crops were left on the farm.

James said his father has since fled the community because of continued threats from the armed men.

“They are still threatening my father for the remaining amount, and he is on the run for fear of the unknown. He can’t go back to harvest everything now until he gets all the money,” James added.

Residents Allegedly Fear Reporting Attacks

James further alleged that the armed men operate openly within the community, with some reportedly known to local residents.

“These people are moving freely in our vicinity, and they are local bandits. In fact, some of them are known to the villagers because they are from the same community,” he said.

He also claimed that other residents had experienced similar attacks and extortion, while fear of retaliation had discouraged victims from reporting the incidents to security agencies.

“The villagers hardly report to police because those who attempted were killed by the bandits,” he alleged.

The incident has renewed concerns about the effect of insecurity on Benue’s farming communities, particularly where threats, kidnapping and extortion can prevent farmers from accessing their fields and harvesting their crops.

The allegations were made during the SERAP workshop, which focused on helping residents understand their safety and security rights, accountability mechanisms and available avenues for seeking justice.

The Executive Chairman of the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS), Zacch Adedeji, has denied allegations linking him and the agency to an alleged $279 million transfer from Nigeria’s Frontier Exploration Fund, describing the report as false and sponsored.

Adedeji insisted that neither he nor the NRS was involved in any illegal movement of funds from the account, while questioning the motive behind the publication.

The controversy followed a report alleging that $279 million had been transferred from the Frontier Exploration Fund to unidentified accounts, with claims that Adedeji and the NRS were aware of the transaction.

The report further suggested that the development had prompted calls from some stakeholders for a forensic examination of the fund’s accounts.

Adedeji Dismisses $279m Allegation

Reacting to the claims, the NRS chairman strongly rejected the allegations and accused those behind the report of attempting to discredit officials of the President Bola Tinubu administration.

“That report is not true in any way. It is pure fake news sponsored by some jobless persons whose pastime is to throw mud at high performers in the President Tinubu government,” he said.

Adedeji also criticised the quality of the reports, arguing that they failed to meet acceptable journalistic standards.

“I consider it to be a brand of cheap journalism lacking in ethics and professionalism but heavy with malicious intentions,” he said.

NRS Chief Alleges Coordinated Media Campaign

The NRS chairman further claimed that the reports published across different online platforms appeared to be part of a coordinated campaign.

According to him, similarities in the wording and presentation of the reports suggested that they originated from the same source.

“To prove to you that it was sponsored, take a critical look at the storyline and language. They are the same language and style in all the reports, meaning that one person wrote it and distributed across gullible online platforms,” he said.

Adedeji maintained that the allegations were not supported by the actual purpose and structure of the Frontier Exploration Fund.

What Is The Frontier Exploration Fund?

According to Adedeji, the Frontier Exploration Fund was established under Section 9 of the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021, to support petroleum exploration in Nigeria’s frontier basins where commercially viable hydrocarbon reserves have not yet been fully established.

He explained that the fund is designed to finance exploration and related activities aimed at identifying and developing petroleum resources in relatively underexplored parts of the country.

The identified frontier basins include the Bida, Benue Trough, Anambra, Chad, Sokoto and Dahomey basins.

Adedeji said eligible expenditure from the fund could include geological mapping, seismic surveys, exploratory drilling, appraisal wells and basin studies, among other petroleum exploration activities.

Allegations Come Amid Scrutiny of Public Funds

The denial comes at a time of increased public scrutiny of Nigeria’s finances and the management of funds linked to the country’s oil and gas sector.

However, the available information does not independently establish that the alleged $279 million transfer actually occurred, nor does it confirm that a forensic audit of the Frontier Exploration Fund has been ordered.

For now, Adedeji’s position remains that the allegations are baseless and represent an attempt to damage his reputation, the NRS and the administration of President Bola Tinubu.

Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has challenged President Bola Tinubu to direct the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to release former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai if Nigeria’s anti-corruption agencies are truly subject to presidential directives.

Atiku’s remarks came in response to President Tinubu’s directive ordering the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to return to court and vacate the order freezing the bank accounts of the Osun State Government. According to the former Vice President, the President’s intervention contradicts repeated claims that Nigeria’s anti-graft agencies operate independently.

In a statement released on Friday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku argued that Tinubu’s action had exposed what he described as the “myth” surrounding the EFCC’s operational independence.

He also questioned the President’s claim that the EFCC obtained a court order before freezing Osun State’s accounts, noting that the commission’s public statement never mentioned such judicial approval.

“President Tinubu’s statement has raised more questions than it has answered,” Atiku said.

“While the EFCC’s official statement painstakingly explained why it froze the Osun State Government’s account, it made no mention whatsoever of obtaining a court order.

“Yet the President’s intervention is predicated entirely on the existence of such a court order, which he claims to have directed the EFCC to vacate.

“If indeed there was a court order, why did the EFCC omit such a fundamental fact from its official account? If there was none, then the President has introduced into the public discourse a legal process that exists nowhere in the EFCC’s own narrative.”

The former Vice President maintained that the President could not deny involvement in the operational affairs of the EFCC while simultaneously issuing instructions directing the commission to discontinue an enforcement action.

“He cannot claim that he neither knew of nor interferes in the operations of the EFCC and, in the very next breath, announce that he has directed the commission to discontinue its action and return to court,” Atiku said.

“If the EFCC promptly complies with that directive, then Nigerians have before them undeniable proof that the commission is not as operationally independent as the President wants the country to believe.”

Atiku further argued that the President’s intervention had created both a constitutional and moral obligation that should not be applied selectively.

“Having now demonstrated that he can issue direct operational directives to anti-corruption agencies whenever he considers it expedient, President Tinubu owes Nigerians an explanation as to why he cannot exercise the same authority in the case of Mallam Nasir el-Rufai,” he said.

“If he can direct the EFCC to discontinue its action today, then he cannot pretend to be powerless over the actions of the ICPC tomorrow.

“Executive power cannot be invoked selectively for political convenience while institutional independence is cited only when it suits the Presidency.”

El-Rufai has remained in ICPC custody since February 19 over allegations of financial misconduct linked to his tenure as Governor of Kaduna State between 2015 and 2023.

The anti-graft agency later arraigned the former governor before the Kaduna High Court on April 13, where he faces an amended nine-count charge bordering on alleged fraud and abuse of office.

Atiku also contended that although the decision to reverse the freezing of Osun State’s accounts might reduce political tension ahead of the August 15 governorship election, it failed to answer critical questions surrounding the original decision.

“The unanswered questions remain: who authorised the freezing of the account of an opposition-controlled state just days before a governorship election, and why was such an extraordinary action taken at such a politically sensitive moment?” he said.