The prosecution of Adeniyi Adeyemi over the alleged creation and operation of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) is more than a criminal case against one individual. It tests Nigeria’s institutional credibility, the reliability of public-sector verification systems and the justice system’s ability to distinguish accountability from political theatre firmly.

Adeyemi was arraigned before the Federal High Court in Abuja on eight counts of conspiracy, forgery and impersonation. He pleaded not guilty and was remanded at theKuje Correctional Centre, with the court fixing October 12, 2026, for consideration of his bail application and further proceedings. The charges allege that he and two other suspects, who remain at large, forged a presidential appointment letter, State House letterheads, approvals for office accommodation and documents relating to the establishment and operation of PFIPC.

The allegations are grave. According to the Presidency, PFIPC was never created by law, executive order, presidential instrument or any other valid government authority. An interim report by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) similarly stated that the Federal Government never appointed Adeyemi and that the appointment letter, gazette and other official-looking documents presented to support the agency were forged.

Yet the seriousness of the allegations must not become a licence to disregard due process. Adeyemi remains an accused person, not a convicted criminal. His denial, his allegation that he paid N400 million through an intermediary to secure the appointment and the counter-allegations involving senior public officials must be tested by admissible evidence, not headlines or official insinuations. The Chief of Staff to the President has denied involvement in the alleged payment arrangement, and that denial, like Adeyemi’s claims, requires proper investigation rather than premature judgment.

Nigerians are disturbed that a scandal of that magnitude is not being accorded the scrutiny it deserves. We do not also see the urgency. As a matter of fact, the government has so far handled the matter with levity, apparently believing that with time, the shameful act would lose currency in the public space, and as usual, Nigerians would move on. This scandal must not be swept under the carpet.

What was revealed in the interim report of the ICPC does not meet public expectations; it is less than transparent. Nigerians want an independent probe that is just and far-reaching. No one associated with the scam must be allowed to place himself/herself above the law.

The central question is not merely how Adeyemi allegedly forged documents. It is how a purported government agency could acquire the appearance of legitimacy, operate from premises associated with government, seek official collaboration, maintain bank accounts and present itself to the public without immediate detection.

The ICPC has acknowledged that weaknesses in verification procedures and inter-agency oversight created opportunities that were allegedly exploited. Its report further indicated that the purported agency appropriated the identity and facilities previously associated with the Presidential Economic Advisory Council, while two other fictitious bodies were allegedly created to expand the scheme.

That finding is profoundly important. A government that treats the matter solely as an individual fraud will miss the institutional failure that allowed it to develop. Public institutions are protected not only by laws but by functioning registers, transparent appointment procedures, secure document systems, accountable premises management and effective financial-sector verification. Where these safeguards are weak, official names, letterheads and symbols become instruments of private enrichment.

The reported discovery of numerous bank accounts allegedly linked to the purported agency also raises urgent questions for financial institutions and regulators. Banks should not be able to open accounts for bodies claiming to be federal agencies merely on the strength of documents that have not been independently authenticated. The Central Bank of Nigeria, the Corporate Affairs Commission, the Office of the Accountant-General and relevant security agencies should determine whether established compliance procedures were followed and whether any warning signs were ignored.

The prosecution deserves public support if it is evidence-led, independent and transparent. The Attorney-General’s decision to take over the case from the police should result in a more rigorous prosecution, not an expanded political contest. The charge must be reviewed carefully to ensure that every count is legally sustainable, properly particularised and supported by evidence capable of surviving cross-examination.

The House of Representatives’ Ad Hoc Committee investigating PFIPC said the inclusion of the fake agency in the 2026 Appropriation was an embarrassment and a security risk. That is why no stone should be left unturned in smoking out all those who enabled the perfidy. It is a betrayal of public trust and must be punished.

The prosecution should establish, among other matters, the origin and authenticity of the alleged appointment letter and related documents; who created, signed, transmitted and used the documents; how the purported agency obtained access to office facilities; the identity and roles of alleged collaborators; whether any public official, intermediary, financial institution or private company facilitated the scheme; the source, movement and final destination of funds allegedly connected to the operation; and whether any person was deceived, financially harmed or induced to provide official recognition.

The court must also protect the accused’s constitutional rights. Bail should be determined according to law, considering the seriousness of the allegations, the risk of flight, possible interference with witnesses and the availability of conditions that can secure attendance at trial. Detention before conviction must not become punishment by another name. Equally, the accused should not use procedural applications or non-appearance to frustrate justice. The reported issuance of an arrest warrant after an earlier failure to appear demonstrates why both the defence and the prosecution must respect the authority of the court.

Justice also requires equal scrutiny of all actors. If Adeyemi acted alone, the evidence should demonstrate that. If public officers enabled access to premises, official correspondence or administrative recognition through negligence, collusion or corruption, they must face appropriate consequences. The ICPC has recommended administrative sanctions for public officers whose acts or omissions may have facilitated the alleged scheme. That recommendation should be implemented only after fair disciplinary procedures and clear findings of responsibility.

In all of these, Nigeria should respond with reforms that make the creation of a phantom agency substantially harder. The former Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs Didi Walson-Jack, admitted that her office failed to carry out adequate due diligence and made mistakes before granting approvals to a controversial, non-existent agency.

To avert a recurrence, every federal ministry, department and agency should maintain a publicly searchable register of legally established institutions, governing instruments, heads of agencies and official contact details. Any purported agency absent from that register should be treated as unauthorised until verified.

Second, presidential and ministerial appointments should carry a secure digital verification code linked to an official government portal. Letters should be authenticated through independent channels rather than by telephone calls or personal introductions.

Third, government premises should be allocated only through documented approval processes. Security, property and administrative departments must verify the identity and mandate of every organisation occupying federal facilities.

Fourth, banks should require direct confirmation from the relevant government authority before opening accounts in the name of a purported public body. The Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit and financial regulators should also strengthen beneficial-ownership checks and suspicious-transaction reporting.

Fifth, agencies should establish a rapid public alert mechanism whenever a fake government body or forged official document is detected. Silence creates space for fraud. A prompt, authoritative clarification could prevent citizens, businesses, diplomats and foreign investors from becoming victims.

Finally, the reform process should not be selective. The President’s directive appropriately called for investigation into public officers, private persons, financial institutions and intermediaries who may have facilitated the alleged scheme. That wider inquiry must not shield politically connected individuals or be used to settle unrelated disputes.

The PFIPC case should end with more than a conviction, acquittal or withdrawn charge. It should produce a credible judicial record, recovery of any unlawful proceeds, accountability for collaborators and institutional changes that protect the state from impersonation. The public deserves neither a predetermined verdict nor an evasive investigation. It deserves the truth established in court, through evidence tested fairly and without fear or favour.

Nigeria’s democracy is not just weakened when government identity can be forged, but it is weakened further when accusations replace proof. The proper response is therefore clear: prosecute where the evidence supports prosecution, sanction negligence and complicity, protect the rights of the accused, and repair the systems that made the alleged deception possible. Adeyemi Adeniyi couldn’t have acted alone. He must also not die in detention because he is willing to tell his side of the story. Justice must prevail.