…Urges FG to come out clearly
News Investigators/ Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, has expressed deep concern over the claims and counter-claims of the existence of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), saying the controversy has exposed the country to Unprecedented ridicule.
Mr. Falana urged the Federal Government to provide a full and transparent account of the controversy surrounding the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), insisting that the Presidency’s explanation has failed to answer critical questions raised by Nigerians.
Speaking on Friday during an exclusive interview on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, Ogun State, Mr. Falana said the government owed Nigerians a more comprehensive explanation.
According to the human rights lawyer, the issues raised by the alleged existence and operations of the council could not be dismissed with a brief official statement.
“Unfortunately, I think there is more to this matter than meets the eye. Nigerians have not been given the full facts. I’ve read Mr. Bayo Onanuga speaking for the Presidency. To say it very mildly, the country has been exposed to unprecedented ridicule. The government must appreciate that they are dealing with civilised people, so the government must come out more clearly on this matter.”
The senior advocate questioned how an agency allegedly not created by law could have found its way into Nigeria’s governance structure, saying the circumstances surrounding the matter raise serious concerns about the country’s institutional integrity.
He queried how the alleged council, reportedly promoted by one Adeniyi Adeyemi, was included in the national budget, operated from the Federal Secretariat, opened accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and had civil servants deployed to it despite lacking any known legal foundation.
“How did an agency that is not created by law find its way into the Appropriation Act of Nigeria? How did that body get an office in the Federal Secretariat? How did that body successfully open accounts in the Central Bank of Nigeria? How did the Head of Service post about 300 staff to that office?”
According to Mr. Falana, the matter extends beyond the individual facing prosecution and requires explanations from several government institutions involved in budgeting, administration and financial management.
He argued that the National Assembly also has questions to answer over the alleged inclusion of the council in the national appropriation process.
“You cannot have an agency that is not created by law in the budget of a country. You cannot put an agency that is unknown to law in the Appropriation Act. The National Assembly members will have to explain who authorised them to insert the body into the budget.”
Mr. Falana maintained that under Section 81 of the Constitution, appropriation bills originate from the Executive before being transmitted to the legislature, making it necessary for the government to explain how the alleged agency appeared in the budget.
He described the official explanation issued by the Presidency as inadequate, saying it left “gaping holes” that only a thorough investigation could address.
“If this is a conman that can con the Presidency into issuing a letter of appointment, con the Central Bank into opening accounts, con the National Assembly into inserting the agency into the budget, I think the government is kidding.”
The senior lawyer also called for an independent investigation into the alleged role of the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, saying he should temporarily step aside to allow the investigation to proceed without controversy.
“The government has a duty to ask Mr. Gbajabiamila to step aside to allow for a full investigation in the interest of the country and even in his own interest.”
While acknowledging that criminal proceedings against the alleged promoter of the council should continue, Falana argued that the courts would not determine the wider institutional issues surrounding the alleged recognition and operations of the agency.
“The law must be allowed to take its course. But there are issues that are not going to come up in court. The court is not going to tell us who opened an account in the Central Bank. The court is not going to tell us who inserted the agency into the budget or why it was signed by the President.”
He therefore urged the Federal Government to reopen its inquiry and involve all relevant agencies and officials in what he described as a transparent investigation.
“The government will have to revisit the matter, go back to the drawing board and issue another statement that will be acceptable to Nigerians by assuring them that there is no cover-up in this matter.”
Mr. Falana added that restoring public confidence would require openness and accountability, warning that failure to comprehensively address the controversy could further undermine trust in public institutions.
Background
The controversy began on June 11, 2026, when the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, issued a public disclaimer distancing the Presidency from the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) and its alleged Director-General, Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew.
In the statement, the Presidency said no such council exists under the administration of President Bola Tinubu, describing Adeyemi as an impostor who falsely claimed to have been appointed by the Office of the Chief of Staff. It advised foreign missions, financial institutions and the public to disregard any representations made on behalf of the purported council.
The Presidency later disclosed that the Chief of Staff had petitioned security agencies in October 2025 after complaints that the council was operating from the Federal Secretariat, allegedly issuing forged appointment letters and presenting itself as a federal agency.
Police subsequently arrested Adeyemi and charged him, alongside two others, before the Federal High Court on allegations bordering on forgery, impersonation and obtaining by false pretence.
However, the matter escalated after documents from the 2026 Appropriation Act surfaced, showing a budgetary allocation of about ₦1.3 billion for an entity listed as the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council. The revelation raised questions over how an agency the Presidency described as non-existent appeared in the approved federal budget with allocations for personnel, overhead and capital expenditure.
The controversy deepened further after Adeyemi challenged the Presidency’s position, claiming the council maintained offices in the Federal Secretariat, operated accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria, and had personnel approved through the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation. He called for an independent investigation into the conflicting claims.
It was against this backdrop that Falana faulted the Presidency’s explanation, insisting that only a comprehensive investigation involving all relevant government institutions can resolve the questions surrounding the alleged council and restore public confidence.
Opposition, Public Reaction
The controversy has drawn sharp reactions from opposition politicians, civil society actors and governance advocates, many of whom argue that the issue extends beyond the criminal charges against the alleged promoter of the council to broader questions about institutional integrity.
Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has given President Bola Tinubu a seven-day ultimatum to order an independent investigation into the scandal. He argued that the alleged inclusion of the PFIPC in the 2026 Appropriation Act with about ₦1.3 billion in funding, despite the Presidency’s insistence that the agency never existed, raises serious questions about the budget process and the oversight roles of the National Assembly, the Central Bank of Nigeria and other government institutions.
Atiku warned that failure to institute a transparent probe would deepen public suspicion that influential figures within government may have enabled or benefited from the alleged fraud. He also called for the investigation to follow “every document, every approval and every official” connected with the controversy.
Similarly, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) has demanded the immediate removal or suspension of the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, arguing that only an independent investigation can restore public confidence in the Presidency’s handling of the allegations.
Beyond the opposition, the controversy has generated widespread debate among lawyers, political commentators and Nigerians on social media, with many questioning how an agency the Presidency describes as fictitious could allegedly operate from the Federal Secretariat, appear in the federal budget, maintain bank accounts and receive personnel postings without official knowledge. Others, however, have urged the public to allow the ongoing criminal proceedings to take their course before reaching conclusions.
The matter continues to generate buzz in the media space even as the man accused of posing as Director-General of the alleged PFIPC, Adeniyi Adeyemi, has denied forging government appointment letters, insisting the Presidency is trying to silence him.
