The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has criticised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to investigate the controversial Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), describing it as a political exercise intended to manage public outrage rather than establish the truth.

The group argued that the investigation had already lost the appearance of independence because President Tinubu publicly dismissed allegations against his Chief of Staff, , before the anti-graft agency commenced its probe.

In a statement issued yesterday by its National Coordinator, Emmanuel Onwubiko, HURIWA said the President’s remarks created the impression that some individuals had been absolved before investigators examined the available evidence.
“It is not how an independent anti-corruption investigation should begin. When the President appears to have reached a conclusion before investigators commence their work, the outcome becomes predictable in the eyes of Nigerians,” the group stated.

HURIWA clarified that it was not accusing Gbajabiamila of any wrongdoing but noted that, as one of the individuals publicly named in the PFIPC controversy, he should be subjected to the same impartial and evidence-based investigation as every other person mentioned.

According to the organisation, the Presidency cannot claim commitment to transparency while appearing to shield powerful officials from scrutiny.

“If the allegations are frivolous, investigators should establish that through evidence. If they are false, the courts should make that determination. The President should not be seen as assuming the roles of investigator, prosecutor and judge by politically absolving key figures before investigations begin,” it said.

The rights group also questioned the 30-day deadline given to the ICPC, warning that it could fuel public suspicion that the exercise was designed to produce a politically convenient outcome rather than a comprehensive investigation.

It urged investigators to establish how a supposedly non-existent agency allegedly operated openly, claimed presidential backing, sought official recognition, interacted with government institutions and financial establishments, and generated nationwide controversy without earlier detection.

HURIWA described it as disturbing that attention appeared to be focused largely on the alleged impersonator, while insufficient effort was being made to determine whether public officials or other influential actors knowingly or unknowingly facilitated the activities under investigation.

“The fundamental question Nigerians are asking is simple: How could a supposedly fictitious agency circulate documents, seek official recognition, engage government institutions and generate nationwide controversy without systemic failures or possible complicity? These are the issues a genuine investigation must answer,” the statement added.

The association maintained that only the courts could impartially determine the veracity of the allegations after all parties had presented evidence under judicial scrutiny.

It warned that any investigation perceived as selective, sanitised or politically managed would further weaken public confidence in Nigeria’s anti-corruption institutions and reinforce concerns about unequal application of justice.

HURIWA therefore called on the ICPC to investigate every individual linked to the PFIPC controversy without fear or favour, insisting that evidence—not political considerations—should determine the outcome.

“The rule of law demands equal accountability. The Presidency must resist every temptation to influence, directly or indirectly, the course of this investigation. Anything short of a genuinely independent probe will be seen by Nigerians as a political smokescreen designed to bury uncomfortable questions instead of confronting them,” the group stated.