The House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the alleged operation of the disputed Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has declared the appointment letter presented by the council’s self-acclaimed Director-General, Adeniyi Adeyemi, as fake.
The committee’s chairman, Yusuf Gagdi, made the declaration on Wednesday during the continuation of the probe in Abuja.
According to Gagdi, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (HCSF), Mrs. Didi Esther Walson-Jack, who appeared before the committee for the second time, confirmed that the documents submitted by Adeyemi were not authentic.
“It was established that the so-called letter of appointment was fake, confirmed by different agencies, and the Act presented to the Head of Service was equally fake, forged by the DG; it was established,” Gagdi said.
Walson-Jack appeared before the panel in compliance with its summons to provide her final submissions on the matter.
She admitted that due diligence was not adequately carried out before her office recognised the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, accepting responsibility for the lapse.
According to her, the Office of the Head of the Civil Service relied on documents that appeared genuine without subjecting them to thorough verification.
She explained that there was initially no reason to question the documents because they bore the State House logo and what appeared to be a familiar signature.
However, she said subsequent comparisons with authentic State House correspondence, supported by police forensic analysis, revealed that the signatures were different.
Walson-Jack assured the committee that her office would strengthen its internal verification procedures to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Also appearing before the panel were Deputy Commissioner of Police Olufemi Akinola and Assistant Commissioner of Police Bashir Abdullahi, representing the Inspector-General of Police.
Akinola told lawmakers that Adeyemi could not honour the committee’s invitation because of a subsisting court order.
He said the self-acclaimed DG could only appear before the committee upon the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Following the submissions, the committee adjourned further proceedings until next week.
The committee had on Monday described the establishment and operation of the purported council as a serious breach and directed the Inspector-General of Police to produce Adeyemi within 48 hours.
Lawmakers said his appearance was necessary to explain how the council secured official recognition and processed government correspondence.
Adeyemi had earlier alleged during a press briefing that the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, demanded 48 per cent of the PFIPC’s ₦27.3 billion take-off grant.
He also claimed that the Chief of Staff received ₦400 million through a proxy and later demanded an additional ₦200 million to facilitate presidential approvals.
Gbajabiamila has denied all the allegations, insisting that he has no personal, official, or professional relationship with Adeyemi.
He also denied demanding or receiving money, as well as allegations linking him to the death of Babatunde Tanimola—whom Adeyemi claimed served as an intermediary—and claims that he was involved in an alleged assassination attempt on Adeyemi or interfered with investigations by security agencies.
In response to the allegations, President Bola Tinubu directed the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to investigate the claims.
Amid public outrage over the controversy, the House of Representatives constituted a 12-member ad hoc committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the disputed agency and the process through which it was included in the 2026 budget.
The panel is also probing the alleged allocation of ₦1.3 billion to the agency in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
During an earlier appearance before the committee, the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Tanimu Yakubu, said no part of the funds appropriated for the disputed agency had been spent.
He explained that although the National Assembly approved funding for the council, the statutory conditions required for the release and utilisation of the money were never fulfilled.
