Startling revelations from the investigations into the operations of the phoney Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) continued yesterday, the final day of the public hearing on the matter.

First, the panel was stunned to hear how the self-styled Director-General of the agency, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Mathew, personally collected a memo addressed to the Permanent Secretary, State House, from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF).

Secondly, the House panel chairman, Yusuf Gagdi, revealed how the fake agency secured a budget line in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

Gagdi, while challenging a witness’s testimony, said the committee’s investigations had revealed that neither the office of the Director of Administration and Support Services nor the official identified as Akanbi Adewale exists in the State House.

He cautioned witnesses against creating the impression that the State House played any role in the controversy.

“You people should not mention the State House in this matter,” the chairman said.

According to him, investigations showed that a non-existent office was used to obtain the administrative code that later paved the way for the council’s appearance in the Federal Government budget.

He added that Nigerians had wrongly accused both the State House and the National Assembly of inserting the agency into the Appropriation Act when evidence suggested that forged documents had manipulated administrative procedures across several government institutions. NigerianEntrepreneur Support

Gagdi spoke after the testimony of a former Director of Consolidated Accounts in the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, Mr. Joshua Luka, now Director of the Federal Projects/Financial Management Department.

Luka told the committee that his office acted on what appeared to be a legitimate request from the State House seeking an administrative code for the council.

According to him, the request was signed “for Permanent Secretary” by one Akanbi Adewale, who identified himself as Director of Administration and Support Services.

Luka explained that after processing the request, his office deliberately addressed its response conveying the administrative code to the Permanent Secretary, State House, rather than directly to the purported agency.

He said this was a deliberate safeguard built into the civil service system.

“As part of our due diligence, what we did was to convey the administrative code to the Permanent Secretary, State House, and not to the so-called agency,” he told lawmakers.

He explained that if the request had not genuinely originated from the State House, the Permanent Secretary would immediately detect the fraud.

“The idea behind this was that if it was not from there, the whole thing would have been unravelled. That is the normal thing done in the service,” he added.

The hearing took a dramatic turn when lawmakers sought to establish how a letter addressed to the Permanent Secretary, State House, ended up in Adeyemi’s possession.

Luka insisted that the correspondence was never intended for the purported council.

“The letter was addressed to the Permanent Secretary, State House, and it was supposed to be delivered there,” he said.

However, Adeyemi, posing as the Director-General of the agency, personally collected the letter from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation.

Luka explained that the Budget Office merely received an advance copy for information, stressing that under civil service procedures, such copies cannot be acted upon unless the original addressee initiates the process.

He further explained that shortly after signing the correspondence on December 2, 2024, he travelled to Tanzania with the Accountant-General and therefore did not supervise its delivery.

“The problem was the person who was supposed to deliver this letter, carrying a letter that was addressed to the Permanent Secretary, State House, and delivering it probably in Wuse Market,” he said.

When lawmakers demanded to know who handled the delivery, Luka identified an official of the Accountant-General’s Office, Mr. Bello.

Bello told the committee that government agencies usually collect official correspondence themselves.

According to him, Adeyemi personally visited the Accountant-General’s Office and collected the letter on behalf of the State House.

Gagdi described it as another major discovery in the investigation, saying the administrative code became the foundation upon which the purported council later secured a budgetary allocation.

He alleged that after obtaining the letter, Adeyemi forged another document purportedly issued by the non-existent Department of Administration and Support Services in the State House, acknowledging receipt of the administrative code before forwarding it to the Budget Office.

According to the chairman, the forged correspondence ultimately misled officials into processing budgetary provisions for the council.

While acknowledging that something had gone wrong, Luka insisted the failure was not systemic.

“What I’m saying is that the lapse here was not an office lapse. The letter was hijacked. It was an individual’s fault and not a system fault,” he said.

He maintained that the fraud would have been uncovered much earlier had the original correspondence reached the Permanent Secretary as intended.

HoCSF promises to fraud-proof processes

Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs. Didi Esther Walson-Jack, also returned before the committee to clarify issues relating to approvals granted to the council.

She reaffirmed that her office neither deployed staff to the PFIPC, allocated office accommodation to it, nor approved any organisational structure for it.

However, she gave a detailed explanation of how the Office processed requests for an authorised establishment and recruitment waiver.

According to her, ministries, departments and agencies seeking to recruit staff are required to present their manpower needs during annual manpower budget defence sessions before officials of the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.

She explained that newly established organisations seeking to recruit personnel simultaneously apply for an authorised establishment and a provisional recruitment waiver.

“The rationale is that the authorised establishment provides the approved staffing structure and authorised positions, while the provisional recruitment waiver permits the organisation to recruit personnel into those positions,” she said.

Walson-Jack said representatives of the PEAC/PFIPC appeared before her officials during the 2025 manpower budget defence, presenting themselves as a newly established government organisation.

According to her, they submitted what appeared to be a valid appointment letter for their Director-General together with what purported to be the council’s Establishment Act.

Based on those documents and the interaction officials had with the representatives, the Office processed the request.

She admitted, however, that subsequent events had shown that more rigorous verification should have been carried out.

“We now, having seen all the facts and observed all the documents, concede that we ought to have carried out more due diligence in issuing an authorised establishment and a recruitment waiver,” she said.

She noted that despite processing hundreds of similar requests over several decades, her office had never encountered fraud of such sophistication.

“I would like to state that we have never encountered a situation like the current one. This is one in almost a century of the Federal Civil Service, and we believe that criminals always try to stay a step ahead of law enforcement,” she said.

The Head of Service explained that one reason the documents appeared genuine was the existence of the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC), whose acronym appeared alongside PFIPC in the submitted documents.

She later requested to examine the documents personally after the controversy surfaced.

According to her, it immediately became clear that the purported Establishment Act was fake.

“I have almost 30 years of legal practice experience. Immediately I saw it, I knew it was not authentic.

“I’m also a certified legal drafter, and so the Act was not original. It was fake,” she said.

She added that the appointment letter initially appeared genuine because it bore the State House logo.

When the committee produced an authentic State House letter signed by the Chief of Staff to the President for comparison, Walson-Jack observed clear differences in the signatures.

“I’m not a forensic expert, but I can clearly see that the signatures are not the same,” she said.

She suggested that the officers who processed the documents might not previously have handled genuine State House correspondence.

Gagdi pointed out that, beyond the forged appointment letter, the committee had established that the council also relied on a fake Act of the National Assembly.

The Head of Service also disclosed that although her office recovered the authorised establishment issued to the council, it had been unable to locate the corresponding recruitment waiver, even though both documents are ordinarily processed together.

She described the disappearance as unusual but assured lawmakers that the Office would strengthen its internal safeguards.

Why police can’t produce Adeyemi

The committee also received a response from Inspector-General of Police Olatunji Disu explaining why Adeyemi was not produced before lawmakers as earlier directed.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Olufemi Akinyola, Deputy Director at the National Cybercrime Centre, represented the Inspector-General.

He apologised on behalf of the police chief, who was engaged in another official assignment, and reiterated the Force’s commitment to cooperating with the National Assembly.

Akinyola explained that Adeyemi could not be produced because he is currently in lawful custody under a subsisting court order.

“The Inspector-General has been mandated to produce the suspect, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Mathew, before the committee today, but that is not being done because he is presently being held in custody based on a subsisting warrant,” he said.

He explained that releasing or producing the suspect without judicial authorisation would amount to violating an existing court order.

“It would be appreciated if the committee could obtain a production warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction to enable us to comply,” he added.

Gagdi acknowledged the explanation, noting that the committee would continue its work within the confines of the law.

Panel grills more officials, ends public sessions

Gagdi issued an update on behalf of the committee, saying documentary evidence gathered from several government institutions pointed to what appeared to be extensive document forgery.

“Based on the documentary evidence obtained during the investigation and engagement with relevant government institutions, the committee has uncovered what appears to be extensive document forgery and will undertake further confirmation in-house,” he said.

The chairman announced that the remaining phase of the investigation would be conducted behind closed doors to enable the committee to obtain further clarifications, consolidate documentary evidence and ensure that all affected institutions receive a fair hearing.

“The committee will conclude the investigation in closed-door sessions with the remaining agencies to seek clarification, consolidate findings and ensure that all parties are accorded a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of due process,” he said.

He added that after completing the exercise, the committee would publicly present its preliminary findings before submitting its final report to the House of Representatives when lawmakers resume from recess.