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.
Discover more from LN247
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
