Disagreement over Gbajabiamila’s invitation and Adeyemi’s proposed testimony is delaying the House panel’s conclusions on the disputed agency

Fresh disagreements have emerged within the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the disputed Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, with divisions over key witnesses threatening to delay the panel’s final report as lawmakers prepare to resume plenary in Abuja.

Also read: APC Youths Target 10m Votes for Tinubu in 2027

The 12-member committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, has spent more than a month examining how the purported agency gained access to government institutions, secured administrative recognition and appeared in the 2026 Appropriation Act despite the Presidency’s position that it was never legally established.

The PFIPC probe has so far drawn evidence from senior government officials, including Head of the Civil Service of the Federation Didi Walson-Jack, Central Bank of Nigeria Director of Banking Services Hamisu Abdullahi, Budget Office Director-General Tanimu Yakubu and Head of the Federal Projects Financial Management Department in the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation Joshua Luka.

Their appearances have exposed significant gaps in the verification of documents presented by Adeniyi Adeyemi, who had represented himself as the organisation’s Director-General.

The committee’s investigation has also uncovered about 29 documents it says are suspected to have been forged, including documents purportedly issued by the State House, the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and the Federal Ministry of Finance.

The revelations have deepened the central question confronting lawmakers: how could an organisation described by the Presidency as fictitious move through several layers of government administration and secure recognition from officials?

The issue became particularly striking after Walson-Jack acknowledged that her office had acted on documents that were subsequently found to be false. She told lawmakers that greater due diligence should have been exercised before approving an authorised establishment and recruitment waiver connected to the purported agency.

The Central Bank also came under scrutiny after acknowledging that accounts had been opened for the purported organisation, adding another layer to questions about how the body gained access to formal government processes.

But as the committee moves towards completing its report, attention has shifted from the documents already examined to the people lawmakers believe should still be heard.

One major point of disagreement is whether Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, Femi Gbajabiamila, should have been formally invited to appear before the panel.

Adeyemi had alleged that he paid N400 million through a proxy to facilitate his appointment and had accused Gbajabiamila of making further financial demands linked to the purported agency.

Gbajabiamila has repeatedly denied the allegations and any involvement in the establishment of the PFIPC. He has also taken legal action against Adeyemi, filing a N15 billion defamation suit at the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja.

The Chief of Staff has maintained that he never authorised anyone to collect money on his behalf and has denied demanding a 48 per cent share of the purported N27.3 billion take-off grant associated with the agency.

The Presidency has similarly maintained that Adeyemi was an impostor and that the purported agency had no legal existence. It said the Office of the Chief of Staff had itself raised concerns about the activities surrounding the organisation before the controversy became public.

That position has not, however, removed the broader institutional questions confronting the House panel.

A source familiar with the committee’s proceedings said some members believed that failing to hear from Gbajabiamila could leave the report vulnerable to criticism, particularly because his name featured prominently in Adeyemi’s allegations.

The source said some lawmakers also wanted the committee to formally approach the court to facilitate Adeyemi’s appearance before the panel in public.

Adeyemi’s testimony has become another contentious issue. The committee had indicated that it would question him at an undisclosed location, but he reportedly insisted that any appearance should be public and conducted in the presence of journalists and his legal team.

The difficulty is compounded by Adeyemi’s existing criminal case. The police have charged him with offences linked to alleged forgery, impersonation and related conduct, while the committee has sought access to him to clarify documents central to its legislative inquiry.

The panel had previously directed the Inspector-General of Police to produce Adeyemi, arguing that his appearance was necessary because the investigation had reached a point where the identities of individuals and the integrity of government institutions were at stake.

Gagdi had said: “People’s names are involved. People’s integrity is involved. Institutional names are involved. Institutional integrity is involved.”

The police, however, noted that Adeyemi remained subject to judicial processes, creating a delicate boundary between the House investigation and the criminal proceedings against him.

The controversy has also attracted sharp criticism from civil society groups, which have questioned whether the parliamentary process can adequately address the institutional failures exposed by the affair.

Amnesty International Nigeria Country Director Isa Sanusi described the controversy as an indictment of weaknesses within government institutions and called for an independent investigation.

“The incident of the fake government agency is an indictment of the Nigerian government. It is a practical indication of the rampant corruption within and around government agencies,” Sanusi said.

He also criticised the House investigation, arguing that officials within the same system should not be left to investigate institutional failures involving their colleagues.

“The whole investigation is a circus. It is a sham that is staged to pretend to be about accountability,” he said.

Transparency International Nigeria Executive Director Auwal Rafsanjani similarly warned that the investigation could end without resolving some of the most important questions raised by the scandal.

Rafsanjani said the controversy was not simply about whether Adeyemi forged documents or impersonated a government official.

“The central question Nigerians are asking is how an entity which the presidency says had no lawful existence was able to penetrate several layers of the Federal Government, obtain official recognition, secure office accommodation within the Federal Secretariat and appear in the 2026 Appropriation Act with an allocation exceeding N1.3bn,” he said.

His concerns echo questions that have followed the controversy since the House opened the investigation in July.

The panel was specifically mandated to determine how more than N1.3 billion was provided for an agency whose legal status was disputed and whether government processes had been compromised.

The scandal has also developed on a separate legal track.

Gbajabiamila voluntarily appeared before the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission after being invited over the allegations. The anti-graft agency clarified that he was questioned and left afterwards, rather than being arrested.

The Chief of Staff’s subsequent defamation action against Adeyemi has added another dimension to a controversy already involving the Presidency, law enforcement agencies, Parliament and several government departments.

Meanwhile, the Presidency’s position has remained that Adeyemi fabricated the agency and used forged documents to project it as a legitimate government institution. The police have also told the House that their investigation originated from petitions linked to his alleged activities.

For the House committee, the immediate challenge is therefore not simply completing a report, but ensuring that the report answers the institutional questions exposed by the case.

The panel must establish how allegedly forged documents passed through government offices, how the purported agency obtained administrative recognition, how accounts were opened in its name, how it secured accommodation and how a disputed organisation ultimately appeared in the national budget.

It must also determine whether the failures were isolated lapses by individual officials or evidence of wider weaknesses in the government’s verification and accountability systems.

As the disagreements over witnesses continue, the credibility of the final report is becoming almost as important as its findings. A hurried conclusion could leave unanswered questions, while a more exhaustive process could provide lawmakers with a stronger basis for recommending administrative, disciplinary or criminal action where evidence warrants it.

Also read: PDP Candidate Amuzu Gives Free Gas Cylinders to 600 Ogun Residents

The PFIPC controversy has already exposed a troubling gap between the formal architecture of government and the safeguards intended to protect it. The final test for the Gagdi-led committee will be whether its report can explain that gap convincingly and identify how it can be closed.