RismadarVoice Reporters, August 4, 2026
The embattled Director-General of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), Prince Adeniyi Matthew Adeyemi, has asked the House of Representatives to grant him administrative clearance to appear before the committee investigating the council’s activities.
Adeyemi, who is currently in custody, requested his legal team, led by Festus Akhigbe, to argue that any report produced by the House without hearing from their client would be incomplete and fundamentally flawed.
The Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, had told the House ad hoc committee at its last sitting that the police could not produce Adeyemi before the panel without the necessary court clearance.
In a statement issued late Sunday, Adeyemi’s lawyers alleged that their client was being portrayed as an “isolated mastermind impostor” who single-handedly created a Federal Government agency.
They argued that the administrative history of the PFIPC suggests that several government institutions were involved in recognising and supporting the council.
According to the legal team, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation acknowledged official documentation relating to the council and facilitated the allocation of office space at the Federal Secretariat Complex.
They also claimed that the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and the Central Bank of Nigeria acted on official documents linked to the PFIPC by issuing administrative budget codes, granting self-accounting status, posting civil servants to the council and opening operational accounts.
The lawyers further stated that the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation approved the council’s organisational structure and granted recruitment waivers that enabled it to employ 314 personnel.
They added that the Budget Office of the Federation and the National Assembly processed documents that resulted in the inclusion of about N1.302 billion for the council in the 2026 Appropriation Act, which was subsequently signed into law by President Bola Tinubu.
The legal team also alleged that security and anti-corruption agencies interacted with the council, while the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission reportedly allocated property to it and requested a N300 million processing fee.
The lawyers argued that it would be difficult for one individual to independently mislead multiple government institutions and obtain official recognition, funding and administrative support.
They alleged that Adeyemi was being made a scapegoat for wider institutional failures and procedural lapses within the Federal Government.
“In light of the ongoing proceedings by the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, we formally request that the panel issue the necessary administrative clearance to allow our client, Prince Adeniyi Matthew Adeyemi, to appear in person and testify,” the legal team said.
The lawyers maintained that denying Adeyemi the opportunity to testify would violate his right to a fair hearing.
They urged the committee to hear from the principal subject of the investigation alongside officials from government institutions involved in the council’s establishment, recognition, funding and operations.
The controversy surrounding the PFIPC began after the Presidency disowned the organisation, stating that it was never established by law, executive order or presidential directive.
Despite this position, the council had operated publicly for years under Adeyemi’s leadership, engaging government agencies, foreign investors and diplomatic missions while presenting itself as a Federal Government body responsible for promoting foreign investment in Nigeria.
The organisation reportedly operated from the Federal Secretariat in Abuja and received an allocation of about N1.3 billion in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
Following the Presidency’s declaration that the council lacked legal backing, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) was directed to investigate its establishment, operations and funding.
The investigation is expected to establish how the PFIPC obtained official recognition, secured budgetary allocations, operated bank accounts and allegedly used government documents and insignia.
The controversy has since developed into a broader governance issue, with lawmakers questioning how an organisation later declared unauthorised was able to operate for years and secure funding through the national budget.
Appearing before the House committee, the Director-General of the Budget Office, Tanimu Yakubu, said the Budget Office did not create the PFIPC but merely processed submissions based on government records and administrative codes.
The explanation has shifted attention to the roles played by other government institutions in the budgetary and administrative processes that enabled the council to operate.
The ongoing investigations by the ICPC and the National Assembly are expected to determine how the PFIPC came into existence, whether public funds were improperly accessed and whether any government officials should be held accountable.
