Among other concerns, the unfolding public scandal over the operation of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) raises critical questions about institutional accountability, public financial controls and how a purportedly fictitious agency could allegedly obtain official recognition, public funds and access to government facilities before being exposed.

While President Bola Tinubu has asked the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to inquire into the controversy and submit a report in one month, public apprehension about it is very high; and government will need prompt and incisive action to douse all suspicions surrounding the matter and ensure official credibility.

Last Wednesday, the Presidency dismissed renewed claims by Prince Adeyemi Adeniyi Matthew that he had been appointed Director-General of the PFIPC that government has dismissed as non-existent. The Presidency described Adeyemi as an impostor who allegedly forged official government documents, appointment letters and government seals purportedly bearing the signature of the President’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, and has been falsely parading himself as the Director-General of the PFIPC.

According to the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Office of the Chief of Staff first uncovered the PFIPC scam after receiving complaints from the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) that another body was operating as a parallel government agency. The Presidency stated that Gbajabiamila petitioned the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Nigeria Police Force on October 17, 2025, requesting an investigation into what he described as “fraudsters and impostors” who were forging appointment letters purportedly issued from his office.

However, in his defence, Adeyemi alleged that the PFIPC was lawfully established by the government and that he was duly appointed Director-General by the Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila. He further alleged that he paid N400 million to Gbajabiamila to secure the appointment. According to him, the personal conflict between them began when Gbajabiamila allegedly demanded 48 per cent of the N1.3 billion reportedly allocated to the PFIPC.

Considering the assertion by the Presidency and presidential spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, that the PFIPC is a fictitious institution operated by impostors, it is difficult to comprehend how such an organisation could have carried out extensive, multi-billion-naira transactions and activities involving the Presidency, the National Assembly and government ministries since 2025 without the knowledge, permission or collaboration of senior government officials within the Presidency and the National Assembly.

Nigerians deserve to know how this so-called phantom institution secured office accommodation at the Federal Secretariat, Abuja; allegedly opened and operated official bank accounts in both naira and foreign currencies with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN); corresponded with ministries and foreign diplomats; employed some staff, some reportedly seconded from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation; hosted high-level diplomatic events; and even secured a reported N1.3 billion allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act allegedly approved by President Tinubu and the National Assembly.

It is also on record that Adeyemi had previously been apprehended over alleged fraudulent dealings with the government and was reportedly charged in court. How then did he find his way back into government circles to allegedly commit another offence?

There is no doubt that the PFIPC affair is a well-orchestrated national scandal. It transcends the potential criminal liability of any one individual. It has evolved into a broader debate about institutional accountability. The real scandal is that a body which the Presidency insists never existed allegedly operated with such astonishing confidence and apparent official recognition that it became virtually indistinguishable from legitimate state institutions. It raises profound questions about the integrity of Nigeria’s governance architecture. A government with effective internal controls should never permit a fictitious agency to operate in plain sight. If official documents were forged, why were the forgeries not detected? If approvals were obtained, who granted them? If public funds were appropriated, who processed the requests? These questions cannot be answered simply by disowning the PFIPC.

This is why critics, lawyers, civil society organisations and former senior government officials have intensified calls for an independent investigation, warning that the scandal has become a test of the Tinubu administration’s commitment to transparency and accountability.

President Tinubu has directed the ICPC to investigate the PFIPC scandal. That response is necessary, but it is insufficient. To begin with, the ICPC, to many Nigerians, could easily be dismissed as a government agency incapable of impartially investigating or indicting senior government officials. Secondly, the one month given the commission to conduct its investigation is long enough to accommodate manipulations, particularly in a country where bad news happens with alarming frequency, one struggling to outpace the other. Therefore, the appointment of a genuinely credible and independent investigative panel to conduct a thorough inquiry into the scandal would have been preferable.

In any event, public confidence cannot be restored merely by prosecuting one suspect, Adeyemi, while leaving far more fundamental questions unanswered. Who processed the documents? Who authenticated the approvals? Which officials failed in their statutory responsibilities? How did a non-existent institution allegedly pass through multiple layers of governmental scrutiny without detection?

These questions not only demand credible answers but also call for the arrest and prosecution of any government officials who conspired with Adeyemi in the commission of these alleged offences. Adeyemi himself has claimed that everything he did enjoyed official government imprimatur. If that allegation proves true, then he could not have acted alone. He must not become a scapegoat while those who allegedly enabled the scheme escape accountability. Any accomplices within the Presidency, the National Assembly or government ministries should likewise be investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted.

Nigeria has witnessed too many scandals in which systemic failures are reduced to the misconduct of a single individual. The PFIPC scandal should instead become a catalyst for comprehensive institutional reform. It should trigger a thorough review of the procedures governing the establishment of government agencies, budget appropriations, official correspondence and access to government facilities. Government must immediately strengthen procedures for verifying official documents, approving public agencies, controlling access to government institutions and improving inter-agency communication. Digital authentication of official documents and stricter internal compliance mechanisms can no longer be regarded as optional administrative conveniences; they are indispensable safeguards for good governance.

The PFIPC scandal has once again underscored the fact that the Presidency should never become associated with anything capable of tarnishing its image. The Presidency is not an ordinary public office. It is the highest constitutional trust in the land, embodying the authority, dignity and moral conscience of the nation. Whoever occupies that office holds it not as personal property but in trust for the Nigerian people. That trust demands the highest standards of integrity, transparency and accountability.

Democratic governance rests not merely on legality but also on legitimacy. Citizens must be assured that access to the Presidency cannot be leveraged for private benefit, commercial ventures or relationships that blur the constitutional distinction between public office and private enterprise. The Presidency must never become a platform for activities that expose it to accusations of favouritism, influence peddling or conflicts of interest.

Therefore, the Presidency should ensure that its investigation is thorough and satisfactorily answers all nagging questions on this matter. Government should embrace the highest standards of public accountability. Any controversy touching the office should be met with prompt disclosure, independent scrutiny and an unwavering commitment to the truth. The constitutional authority of the President is strengthened—not weakened—by openness.