• Reps summon Budget minister, DG over N1.3b vote to fake council
• Senate shelves budget probe as Barau insists on ICPC report
• Kawu rejects Senate silence, insists NASS is part of PFIPC scandal
• Afenifere, HEDA, HURIWA fault Tinubu’s directive, demand full probe
• Father of alleged PFIPC DG recounts police ordeal

The furore over the phantom Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has refused to abate despite President Bola Tinubu’s marching order to probe the scandal within 30 days.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives summoned the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain how over N1.3 billion was allocated to the PFIPC in the 2026 budget.

This is amid rousing criticism of the presidential directive, with opposition figures and civil society leaders calling for an expanded probe beyond the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).

Yesterday’s resolution followed the adoption of a motion of urgent public importance sponsored by Yusuf Gagdi (APC, Plateau), during the plenary session presided over by Speaker Tajudeen Abbas. The lawmakers warned that the incident exposed serious weaknesses in Nigeria’s appropriation process and public financial management.

The lawmakers also resolved to constitute an ad-hoc committee to investigate how the budgetary provision for the PFIPC found its way into the 2026 Appropriation Framework, tracing the allocation from the executive budget proposal through legislative consideration.

Gagdi argued that the inclusion of more than N1.3 billion for an agency without any legal foundation raised critical questions about the integrity of the country’s budget preparation and approval process. “The ease with which an unestablished entity was processed through official channels suggests a systemic vulnerability rather than an isolated administrative lapse,” he said.

Following the adoption of the motion, the House directed that all ministries, departments and agencies listed in the 2025 and 2026 Appropriation Frameworks be verified against their legal instruments of establishment.

The lawmakers also requested the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no public funds have been released, and that no payment warrants would be issued in favour of the alleged agency pending the conclusion of the investigation.

Supporting the motion, Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu disclosed that he had previously met representatives of the organisation after receiving an official-looking letter bearing the Presidency’s insignia. He said his office received correspondence dated May 2, 2025, from a body identifying itself as both the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC) and the PFIPC.

According to Kalu, the letter contained a Federal Secretariat address, an official-looking government logo and a “.gov.ng” website, prompting his office to verify the group’s physical location before granting it an audience.

He, however, noted that during the meeting, the delegation abandoned the policy issues contained in its letter and appeared more interested in taking photographs, adding that the incident underscored the need for stricter verification of government agencies.

MEANWHILE, in the upper chamber, the Senate shelved a proposed investigation into the controversial PFIPC.

The decision came only after a tense exchange on the Senate floor between Deputy Senate President Barau Jibrin, who presided over plenary, and Senator Suleiman Abdulrahman Kawu, the sponsor of the motion.

The back-and-forth underscored the Senate leadership’s apparent reluctance to entertain a debate that directly questioned the integrity of the National Assembly’s own budgetary process before the motion was eventually allowed to proceed—only to be effectively set aside moments later.

Kawu had risen under Orders 9 and Rule 9(c) of the Senate Standing Orders to seek an investigation into the budgetary allocation, operations, and controversy surrounding the PFIPC, arguing that the issue transcended the agency’s existence and had become a constitutional test of the Senate’s oversight credibility.

Before allowing debate, Barau questioned the need to proceed with the motion, noting that President Tinubu had already directed the ICPC to investigate the controversy.

He repeatedly suggested that the Senate should avoid duplicating an investigation already assigned to an anti-corruption agency.

Kawu, however, pushed back, insisting that his motion addressed an entirely different issue.

The senator representing Kano South maintained that while the ICPC could investigate alleged criminal conduct, only the Senate can examine how a disputed agency survived the appropriation process and received legislative approval.

He urged the Deputy Senate President not to conflate the executive investigation with Parliament’s constitutional duty to protect the integrity of the budget.

After the sustained intervention, Barau reluctantly allowed the motion to be formally presented before the chamber. Despite eventually permitting the motion to be heard, Barau moved swiftly to steer the Senate away from an immediate investigation. Ruling on the motion, he argued that lawmakers should first await the outcome of the ICPC investigation before taking any legislative action.

HOWEVER, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has said only an independent inquiry into the scandal surrounding the PFIPC will be acceptable to Nigerians, while criticising President Tinubu’s directive to the ICPC to investigate the scam featuring his Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila.

In a statement, ADC National Publicity Secretary, Bolajj Abdullahi, said: “We insist, however, that only an independent judicial panel will be able to provide answers beyond all reasonable doubt to the many questions that this historic scandal has thrown up.

“By handing the investigation to the ICPC, an agency of government under the Executive, it conveys the impression that the President intends to keep the investigation in-house and possibly be a judge in his own case.

“Since the Presidency itself acknowledges that the investigation may extend to the conduct of public officials and institutions connected to the Presidency, Nigerians deserve to know whether every relevant office, including the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President, will be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as every other institution. If this is so, the minimum expectation is for the President to direct his Chief of Staff to proceed on leave until the investigations are concluded. As long as he remains an active government official, it creates the impression that the President is deliberately shielding a key party in this matter. It would also be difficult to convince anyone that the Chief of Staff would not use his powerful office to influence the investigations in his favour.

“Lastly, the President must commit to releasing the full, un-redacted report at the end of the investigation. Merely announcing the outcome, or punishing a few expendable officials or scapegoats, will not satisfy a nation crying out for justice and will certainly not restore the confidence of the international community, which now views our Presidency as a den of scammers.”

The party’s position was also reiterated by its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar. Atiku said the proposed panel should be expanded to comprise representatives of the Federal Government, the ADC, the Peoples Democratic Party, the National Democratic Coalition, the Nigerian Bar Association, civil society organisations, retired judicial officers and other eminent Nigerians.

According to Atiku, although the President’s directive validates his earlier demand for a probe, it does not amount to the independent investigation required to restore public confidence in the handling of the matter. He argued that because the allegations touch on the conduct of government institutions and official processes, the Federal Government cannot be expected to investigate itself and command public trust in the outcome.

Similarly, the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has criticised President Tinubu’s directive 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 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. According to the organisation, the Presidency cannot claim commitment to transparency while appearing to shield powerful officials from scrutiny.

For the pan-Yoruba socio-cultural organisation, Afenifere, it dismissed claims yesterday that it had remained silent over the controversy surrounding the alleged activities of the PFIPC. Responding to enquiries, Afenifere’s National Organising Secretary, Abagun Kole Omololu, disclosed that the organisation had sought an audience with President Tinubu to convey its position on the matter.

According to Omololu, Afenifere considers the issue too weighty to ignore, saying it raises questions about public accountability and also touches on the integrity and Omoluabi ethos, which the organisation regards as the enduring moral values of the Yoruba people.

Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA), Mr Olanrewaju Suraju, urged President Tinubu to temporarily relieve Gbajabiamila of his duties if the administration intends to ensure a credible and independent investigation by the ICPC.

Suraju argued that placing the Chief of Staff on temporary suspension pending the outcome of the investigation would demonstrate the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability.

He further argued that, given the influence attached to the office of the Chief of Staff, allowing Gbajabiamila to remain in office during the investigation could create a perception of possible interference, whether or not any interference actually occurs.

Offering a different perspective, a former member of the House of Representatives from Rivers State, Mr Bernard Mikko, argued that public attention should not be focused solely on the President’s Chief of Staff while overlooking the roles of other government institutions, particularly the National Assembly and officials within the Presidency.

According to Mikko, the controversy raises broader questions about accountability in the budgeting process and should not be reduced to an individual matter. He also maintained that whether Gbajabiamila is suspended pending the investigation is ultimately a political decision for the Presidency, adding that such a step, while significant, would not, by itself, address the fundamental issues raised by the allegations.

MEANWHILE, the father of Adebayo Adeniyi has narrated what transpired at his Ogbomoso residence when operatives searched for his son.

Pa Adetunji Ajayi Adeniyi, in an interview with newsmen, said the police conducted two operations, with the first operation around 12:30 a.m. on Saturday, when security operatives allegedly invaded his residence in the Technical College area of Ogbomoso, Oyo State.

“We woke up, and my wife said, ‘Aren’t people within our compound?’ Then they started banging on the door and windows to tell us to open the door to the main house. They had jumped over the fence, bending the barbed wire we installed. Those who jumped in now broke the padlock on the gate to allow others to enter.

“They surrounded the house. They insisted we should open the door but I demanded their identity and they said government security agents and I opened the door. They disclosed they were looking for Bayo. I said I didn’t have Bayo at home,” he stated.

The elderly man alleged that the operatives searched every part of the house, forced open wardrobes and confiscated both his mobile phone and that of his wife before leaving at about 1a.m. He said the operatives returned at about 2:30 a.m. and handed the phones back before departing.

He further stated that the police later returned on Monday around 11:30 a.m. and took him to the Sunsun Divisional Police Headquarters for questioning over his son’s whereabouts.

“They were angry I didn’t know his whereabouts, that I don’t know where my son lives. I said I didn’t say that; I told them he lives in Abuja,” he added.

“I don’t know the offence of my son. You just said he is wanted. You insisted what was his job and I told you that he said he was working under government in Abuja. My son is gentle, he is never a troublemaker, and I know he works in Abuja under the government,” he said.