***Says ‘forged’ letters bore names of non-existent officials
***Insists department named in disputed documents does not exist
…Faults agencies for failure to verify authenticity of documents
**Committee summons agencies for final hearing August 12

The State House has denied authoring any correspondence to the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) seeking the creation of a budget code for the alleged Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIFC), describing documents linking it to the controversial body as forged.

The denial came on Thursday during the continuation of the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee’s investigation into the alleged unlawful creation and operation of the PFIFC, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi.

Appearing before the committee, the Director of Administration, State House, AbdulKadir Idris, insisted that neither the Permanent Secretary nor any official of the Presidency requested the Accountant-General to generate a budget code for the council.

Idris who represented the Permanent Secretary, State House, Temitope Peter Fashedemi told lawmakers that the State House had no knowledge of the PFIFC until the matter surfaced in the media and the institution was invited by the Nigeria Police Force National Cybercrime Centre.

“We did not send any correspondence or request to the Office of the Accountant-General for this council. We do not even know anything about this council. We never heard about this council until we started seeing it in the media,” Idris said.

He equally dismissed claims that the State House sought approval or justification for the establishment of the council.

“We did not seek approval or justification for creating the PFIFC. We never heard about the council until the issue came up in the media,” he added.

The testimony contrasts with that of the Accountant-General of the Federation, Shamseldeen Ogunjimi, who appeared before the committee in recent weeks.

Ogunjimi had informed lawmakers that the OAGF received a letter dated November 7, 2024, on State House letterhead requesting the creation of an administrative code for the PFIFC.

He said believing the correspondence to be authentic, the Treasury created the code and replied to the State House on November 29, 2024, copying the Budget Office, in line with established government procedures.

The Accountant-General, however, maintained that subsequent investigations revealed that the request did not originate from the State House.

He alleged that the Treasury’s response was intercepted by the alleged promoter of the council before it could reach the State House, arguing that the alleged fraud would likely have been uncovered much earlier had the correspondence been delivered to the Presidency.

But Idris explained that the State House only became officially involved in the matter on July 6, when officials were invited by the Nigeria Police Force National Cybercrime Centre over documents allegedly emanating from the Presidency.

According to him, one of the documents presented to the State House was purportedly signed by one Adewale Akanbi as State House Director of Administration and Support Services.

“There has never been a Director of Administration in the State House bearing that name,” he said.

Idris further told the committee that he submitted a comprehensive list of all Directors of Administration in the State House from 2003 to date to demonstrate that no such individual had ever occupied the office.

The Director also disclosed that the State House has no department known as the Department of Administration and Support Services, contrary to what appeared on the disputed correspondence.

He said several features of the purported letters exposed them as forged. According to him, the letterheads used by the suspected promoters were different from official State House stationery

“We only have the Department of Administration. There is no department called Administration and Support Services in the State House.

“If you look at those letters, you will see there is a great difference between the letterhead we use and the one they used. The forged letterhead even carried a telephone number, which official State House letterheads do not have,” he explained.

Idris faulted officials who processed the documents without first verifying their authenticity.

“When those offices received the letters, they should have carried out due diligence. If they could not write to us for confirmation, they should at least have called. They did not,” he said.

The witness also explained that the responsibilities of the State House do not include seeking budget codes for new agencies.

He noted that the Permanent Secretary is responsible for the administration of the State House and provision of services to the President and Vice President, while the institution prepares budgets only for the State House and agencies already under it.

“A letter requesting a budget code is not supposed to emanate from the State House,” he maintained.

Questioning the director, Chairman of the committee, Rep. Yusuf Gagdi, referred to documents submitted earlier by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation showing that the Treasury received a letter purportedly from the State House requesting the creation of a budget code for the PFIFC and subsequently approved it.

Gagdi observed that while the State House now insists it never authored the correspondence, the Accountant-General’s office admitted receiving it and acting on it.

He pointed out that the Accountant-General’s office responded to a department that the State House has now confirmed never existed.

“The State House has denied that it ever wrote to the Accountant-General. It has also submitted records showing that the purported Director of Administration and Support Services never existed and that there is no such department in the State House,” Gagdi said.

He also referred to another disputed document purportedly conveying appointments into the council from the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President.

Responding, Idris explained that whenever the President approves appointments, the communication is formally conveyed through the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), not in the manner reflected in the disputed documents.

Asked whether the State House ever received the Accountant-General’s reply approving the budget code, Idris answered in the negative.

Speaking after the hearing, Gagdi, announced that the investigation would resume on Wednesday, August 12, with all the government agencies involved in the matter expected to appear before the panel.

He said the session would likely be the committee’s final public hearing, after which lawmakers would begin compiling their findings and recommendations.

Gagdi noted that the objective of the investigation was not only to establish responsibility for the alleged fake council but also to identify institutional lapses, recommend necessary corrective measures, and strengthen government processes to prevent similar scandals in the future

The controversy began after the House, during consideration of the 2026 Appropriation Bill, uncovered a budgetary allocation running into billions of naira for the PFIFC, despite there being no law establishing the council.

The discovery prompted the House to constitute an ad hoc committee to investigate the legal status of the body, the process through which it secured government recognition, and how it obtained a budget code and appropriation without presidential approval or an enabling Act of the National Assembly.

Since the commencement of the probe, officials of the Office of the Accountant-General, Budget Office of the Federation, Corporate Affairs Commission, Federal Ministry of Justice and other government institutions have appeared before the committee, with several witnesses alleging that forged State House documents were used to obtain official recognition for the purported council.