…uncovers elaborate fraud scheme allegedly perpetrated by Adeyemi

…Says purported executive order, National Assembly Act forged

…Exposes 58 bank accounts, 12 associated entities linked to scheme

The House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee investigating the alleged inclusion of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) in the Federal Budget Framework has cleared the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, of involvement in the activities of the purported organisation.

The committee, however, said its preliminary investigation had uncovered an elaborate scheme involving the alleged fabrication of presidential correspondence, a purported Executive Order, an altered document presented as an Act of the National Assembly and the unauthorised use of the names and identities of senior government officials.

Chairman of the committee, Yusuf Gagdi, disclosed the findings on Wednesday while presenting the panel’s preliminary report at a press conference in Abuja.

The investigation followed a House resolution of July 8, 2026, directing the committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the emergence of PFIPC and its alleged inclusion in the Federal Budget Framework.

According to Gagdi, the committee found no valid Act of the National Assembly, gazetted enactment, Presidential Executive Order or other lawful instrument establishing PFIPC.

He said no competent government authority had produced an authentic record showing that the organisation was created, approved or authorised by President Bola Tinubu, the Federal Executive Council, the National Assembly, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation or any other legally empowered institution.

The committee also found that the organisation operated under inconsistent names, including the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council and Presidential Economic Advisory Council.

A major finding of the investigation concerned a document purporting to appoint Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi as Director-General of the organisation.

The document was presented as an official communication from the Presidency and purportedly carried the authority and signature of Gbajabiamila.

But Gagdi said evidence obtained from the State House established that no such appointment was made or approved by the Presidency.

He said Gbajabiamila neither issued nor signed the letter, while the letterhead was not authentic State House letterhead and its reference number was inconsistent with the official referencing system.

The format, language and administrative features of the document, he added, also differed materially from genuine State House correspondence.

“The Committee therefore preliminarily finds that the purported appointment letter was fabricated and falsely attributed to the Presidency,” Gagdi said

He described the fabrication as a serious assault on the integrity of the Office of the President, stressing that any attempt to manufacture a document suggesting presidential approval required serious investigative and prosecutorial attention.

Rather than implicating the Chief of Staff, the committee said documentary evidence showed that he had acted against the purported organisation when concerns were formally brought to his attention.

Gagdi said the committee found correspondence showing that concerns about PFIPC had previously been brought to Gbajabiamila by the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission over suspected fraudulent activities and misuse of institutional materials.

According to him, Gbajabiamila responded within one day by contacting relevant security and investigative agencies, including the Nigeria Police Force, Office of the National Security Adviser, Department of State Services and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

He said the President’s chief of staff also initiated administrative verification through relevant government institutions.

The committee said subsequent concerns, including those relating to a proposed World Investment Summit, also triggered further communications seeking investigation and appropriate action.

“The documentary evidence presently before the Committee does not establish that the Chief of Staff authorised, approved, established or participated in the activities of the purported organisation.

“On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates repeated steps to secure investigation, institutional

verification and appropriate administrative action”, the committee said.

The panel consequently commended Gbajabiamila for timely security and administrative interventions.

The committee said it also uncovered a document presented as Presidential Executive Order No. 5 of February 24, 2026, which was allegedly used to provide legal backing for the organisation.

 

Gagdi said available evidence indicated that the document was neither issued nor approved through lawful presidential processes.

 

The panel also examined a document presented as an Act of the National Assembly establishing the organisation.

It found that the document was never passed by both chambers of the National Assembly, was not assented to by the President and was not gazetted as an Act of the Federation.

 

According to the committee, portions of a document relating to another institution appeared to have been electronically altered, mutilated or substituted to create the impression that Parliament had enacted legislation establishing PFIPC or the purported Presidential Economic Advisory Council.

 

Gagdi described the alleged falsification of legislative authority as particularly grave.

 

The committee uncovered a letter dated November 7, 2024, purportedly emanating from the State House and requesting the creation of an administrative code for PFIPC.

 

The letter was allegedly signed by one Akambi Adewale, described as Director, Administration and Support Services, for the Permanent Secretary.

 

But State House evidence, according to the panel, showed that the purported office did not exist in the stated form, the directorate was nonexistent and no State House officer known as Akambi Adewale served in the claimed capacity.

 

The committee concluded that fictitious names, offices and designations had allegedly been deployed to mislead a key financial institution of the Federal Government.

 

Beyond the purported council, the committee said its investigation had identified a wider network of entities and financial accounts linked through identifying information associated with Adeyemi, also referred to in some records as Adeyemi Matthew.

 

Gagdi said preliminary financial information indicated that about 58 bank accounts were linked through the relevant identifying information, with more than 30 accounts apparently operated in the names of about nine agencies, companies, foundations or related entities.

 

The committee identified more than 12 associated entities, including organisations bearing names connected to investment promotion, United Nations youth initiatives, entrepreneurship, education and foundations.

 

Gagdi stressed that the committee had not concluded that every account, entity or transaction was unlawful.

 

He said investigators were still reconciling registration records, account mandates, beneficial ownership information, signatories and transaction histories.

 

The committee is also investigating whether the entities were created or used to create artificial credibility, solicit funds, obtain investments, secure government facilities or induce members of the public to part with money.

Another major aspect of the probe is an alleged transaction involving approximately N400 million.

The committee said a company had alleged that Adeyemi induced it to make the payment in four instalments after representing that it would receive a contract involving the renovation, furnishing or improvement of a residence purportedly allocated to him as Director-General of PFIPC.

The company reportedly alleged that its representatives were taken to a residential property in Abuja and told that it was the purported official residence.

Gagdi said the committee was tracing the payment destinations, identifying account holders and beneficial owners, and verifying the ownership and status of the property.

He said the investigation would also determine whether any public officer or other person participated in, facilitated or benefited from the transaction.

If established through the appropriate investigative and judicial processes, the committee said the conduct could disclose offences including fraudulent misrepresentation, obtaining money by false pretence, impersonation, conspiracy and forgery.

The panel also said approximately 39 people were paraded or represented as employees of the purported organisation across different cadres.

It is investigating their recruitment, appointment letters, identity cards, salaries and allowances, as well as allegations that some persons paid money as a condition for employment.

The committee said it would distinguish between people who were themselves deceived and those who knowingly participated in or benefited from the alleged scheme.

It also found that PFIPC occupied office accommodation within the Federal Secretariat Complex without lawful allocation from the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.

The panel said part of accommodation previously allocated to the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation was allegedly made available to the purported organisation by certain officers without lawful authority.

According to the committee, the occupation of government premises helped reinforce the organisation’s appearance as a legitimate federal agency.

The committee said misleading or fabricated documents were allegedly presented to the Federal Road Safety Corps, resulting in the processing or approval of special number plates for vehicles associated with the organisation.

PFIPC also maintained a website and digital identity portraying itself as a Federal Government agency, complete with a purported vision, mission, organisational structure and staff hierarchy.

More significantly, the committee said the organisation allegedly presented President Tinubu as chairman of its purported governing council and published the names, offices and photographs of senior public officials as members.

 

The committee said it had received no evidence that the President or the affected officials consented to, accepted or even knew of their purported membership.

Gagdi described the unauthorised use of the names, offices and images of the President and senior government officials as a serious matter capable of misleading the public and private organisations.

Committee wants investigations concluded

The panel said its preliminary findings point to an apparent scheme involving forged presidential correspondence, a purported Executive Order, an altered legislative instrument, unauthorised representation of senior officials, misrepresentation to government institutions, unauthorised occupation of government premises and the operation of multiple related entities and accounts.

It identified Adeyemi as the principal person associated with the representation and operation of PFIPC and said it was investigating his connection with the wider network of entities.

But Gagdi stressed that the findings remained preliminary and did not amount to a final determination of criminal guilt.

The committee called on security and anti-corruption agencies to conclude their investigations, preserve relevant evidence, trace suspected proceeds and prosecute anyone against whom sufficient admissible evidence is established.

It also recommended enhanced verification procedures for the creation of new government institutions, administrative and budget codes, presidential correspondence and appointments.

Among other measures, it proposed a centralised digital platform through which the legal existence and establishing instrument of every Federal Government ministry, department and agency could be verified.

The committee said it would continue its investigation before submitting its final report to the House.

Gagdi said the final report would contain definitive findings on individual and institutional responsibility and recommendations for possible legislative, administrative, disciplinary, civil, financial and prosecutorial action.