The House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee investigating the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) on Tuesday summoned the National Security Adviser (NSA), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, to explain the actions taken by his office after it was alerted to the activities of the unestablished council in October 2025.

The committee also insisted that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, must personally appear before it to clarify issues arising from the ministry’s submissions on the controversy.

The summons followed revelations by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Dunoma Umar Ahmed, that the ministry reported the activities of the PFIPC and its self-acclaimed Director-General, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, to the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) after discovering discrepancies in documents submitted by the organisation.

Representing the Minister before the committee chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, Ahmed disclosed that Prince Adeyemi approached the ministry on three occasions June 26, 2025, August 5, 2025, and June 5, 2026—seeking its collaboration and endorsement to host a World Investment Summit in Nigeria.

He said the ministry declined all three requests after conducting due diligence and identifying inconsistencies in the documents submitted by the organisation.

According to Ahmed, the ministry subsequently wrote to the Office of the National Security Adviser on October 16, 2025, seeking clarification on the status of Prince Adeyemi as Director-General of the PFIPC.

He said the ONSA responded on November 26, 2025, conveying that enquiries made with the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President established that Prince Adeyemi was unknown to any office of the Federal Government.

Ahmed told lawmakers that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs never participated in any diplomatic engagement, bilateral or multilateral discussions involving the PFIPC, nor did it facilitate foreign investors, partners or delegations on behalf of the council.

He also stated that there was no record of any Memorandum of Understanding or agreement signed between the council and any foreign government through the ministry.

According to him, no Nigerian mission abroad interacted with the council because the ministry never issued any directive recognising it.

“Flowing from the above, I wish to respectfully conclude by saying that the Ministry has never had any official interaction or engagement with the PFIPC or its alleged Director-General,” he said.

Reacting to the presentation, Gagdi questioned why stronger action was not taken after the National Security Adviser reportedly established that the council was unknown to the Federal Government.

He said the committee needed to determine what steps the nation’s security apparatus took after receiving the ministry’s report.

“It is now the duty of the committee to move further and invite the Office of the National Security Adviser to come and answer the very important question raised by Honourable Abubakar Fulata.

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs received correspondence from this agency under investigation, suspected foul play and discrepancies, and wrote to the National Security Adviser.

“The NSA responded that it is an illegal agency. What has the Office of the National Security Adviser done as a security institution after that discovery? If they discovered that the agency does not exist, then appropriate action ought to have been taken. They should come before this committee and explain the actions they have taken,” Gagdi said.

The committee consequently directed Ribadu to appear before it on Thursday, while also insisting that the Minister of Foreign Affairs personally attend the hearing.

The PFIPC controversy erupted after the Presidency disowned the council and the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC), declaring that neither body was established by the Federal Government.

The Presidency subsequently accused Prince Adeyemi of using forged government documents to obtain official recognition from public institutions.

The House committee is investigating how the council allegedly secured official recognition across government agencies and was allocated funds in the 2026 Appropriation Act despite lacking legal backing.