The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has accused the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee investigating the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) of prejudging issues already before the courts.

The right group warned that its conduct could undermine the rule of law and public confidence in legislative oversight.

It also faulted the continued detention of the principal suspect in the matter, Prince Adeyemi, arguing that his absence from the committee’s proceedings denied him the opportunity to defend himself against allegations levelled in public.

In a statement issued on Thursday by its National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko, HURIWA alleged that the committee’s handling of the investigation gave the impression that conclusions had been reached before all parties were heard.

According to the organisation, what took place during the panel’s recent sitting “was not a genuine legislative oversight exercise but a carefully choreographed political spectacle apparently designed to manufacture a predetermined narrative and shield highly placed public officials from searching scrutiny.”

The group argued that the speed with which the committee reportedly dismissed Prince Adeyemi’s appointment letter as fake and made pronouncements on the authenticity of documents raised questions about the impartiality of the investigation.

“This is not legislative oversight. It is legislative overreach. This is not accountability. It is, in our view, an attempt to influence public perception while judicial proceedings remain pending,” the statement said.

HURIWA maintained that the National Assembly should not conduct its proceedings in a manner capable of prejudicing matters that are already before a court of competent jurisdiction.

The organisation also criticised the Nigeria Police Force over its failure to produce Prince Adeyemi before the committee despite repeated requests, describing the explanation offered by the police as unsatisfactory.

It said the continued detention of the suspect and his absence from the hearings raised concerns about due process and fair hearing as guaranteed under Section 36 of the Constitution.

“Justice cannot be done in the absence of the central figure in the controversy,” HURIWA stated, adding that denying him the opportunity to confront the allegations before the panel offended constitutional principles.

The rights group further alleged that the committee appeared more interested in clearing certain senior public officials than conducting a comprehensive inquiry into the issues surrounding the PFIPC.

It specifically argued that, given the public interest generated by the matter, the Chief of Staff to the President should have voluntarily stepped aside to allow what it described as an independent and transparent investigation capable of commanding public confidence.

HURIWA also questioned why the investigation appeared to focus largely on one individual despite allegations that several government ministries, departments and agencies had processed the disputed documents.

“If forged documents allegedly passed through several government ministries, departments and agencies, Nigerians deserve answers as to how such documents repeatedly escaped institutional verification,” the group said.

It warned against reducing the investigation to what it described as “a convenient exercise in identifying a lone scapegoat while systemic failures and possible official complicity receive little or no rigorous examination.”

The organisation urged the House of Representatives to refrain from making further public pronouncements that could prejudice pending judicial proceedings and allow the courts to determine the issues before them without interference.

It also called on the Nigeria Police Force to comply with all lawful processes relating to Prince Adeyemi and guarantee his constitutional right to a fair hearing.

HURIWA further urged Nigerians to remain vigilant, insisting that public institutions derive their legitimacy from adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law rather than political expediency.

It maintained that the credibility of the investigation would ultimately depend on whether it was conducted in an impartial, transparent and constitutionally compliant manner rather than the volume of allegations made during public hearings.