…says Fake Agency initially requested N3.85bn personnel cost
The House of Representatives’ investigation into the controversial Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) took a new turn on Friday after the Budget Office of the Federation insisted that although the National Assembly appropriated N1.302 billion for the council in the 2026 budget, no public funds were ever released to the agency because it failed to meet the statutory conditions required for expenditure.
The testimony by Tanimu Yakubu, the director-general of the Budget Office, before the House Ad Hoc Committee investigating the alleged unlawful establishment and funding of the council shifts the focus of the probe from whether money was spent to how an agency the Presidency has described as non-existent secured official recognition across several government institutions and ultimately found its way into the federal budget.
The House panel is investigating how the PFIPC, which President Bola Tinubu’s administration insists was never established by law or executive action, obtained a budget code, interacted with government agencies and was allocated N1.302 billion in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
Appearing before lawmakers, Yakubu maintained that the Budget Office neither created the council nor approved its establishment, recruitment or salaries, arguing that the office merely discharged its constitutional responsibility based on official documents received from other government institutions.
“The Budget Office did not create the council. It did not assign its budget code. It did not approve its establishment. It did not grant its recruitment waiver,” Yakubu said.
“It received official instruments and did what the law required of it. It measured their fiscal effect.”
He explained that before the Budget Office processed the request, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation had already assigned the council an administrative budget code, while the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation had issued an authorised establishment and recruitment waiver.
According to him, those approvals enabled the office to assess the fiscal implications of the request but did not amount to creating a government agency.
Yakubu disclosed that the council initially requested N3.85 billion for personnel costs, but the Budget Office rejected the proposal and carried out its own computation using the approved establishment, recruitment waiver and the applicable public service salary structure.
“That estimate did not form the basis of the Budget Office’s recommendation. The Budget Office rejected it and made an independent calculation,” he said.
“That calculation produced N802,978,783. This was not a concession to the council. It was the Budget Office’s own fiscal proposal.”
The amount eventually formed part of the Executive Budget submitted to the National Assembly before lawmakers appropriated the overall N1.302 billion allocation for the council.
However, Yakubu stressed that appropriation alone does not translate into access to public funds.
“An appropriation is authority in law to make provision for expenditure. It is not a cheque. It is not a warrant. It is not cash released from the Treasury.”
He explained that the Budget Office never issued the mandatory Financial Clearance required before recruitment, payroll enrolment and salary payments could commence because the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission had yet to certify the council’s proposed staffing and remuneration structure.
“There was no Financial Clearance. There was no lawful recruitment. There was no payroll enrolment. There was no salary payment.”
Yakubu noted that personnel appropriations are paid directly to verified employees through the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System rather than as lump-sum transfers to agencies.
“As a result, not one kobo of the personnel provision could lawfully have been drawn, and not one kobo was drawn.”
He added that the council also failed to access its ₦200 million overhead allocation because Treasury warrants and cash backing were never issued.
Similarly, its ₦300 million capital allocation remained untouched because no procurement process progressed beyond the appropriation stage.
“No procurement reached the point at which expenditure would arise. No Ministerial Tenders Board approved a transaction. No Certificate of No Objection was issued. No Treasury warrant followed. No Treasury cash-backing followed.”
According to Yakubu, the PFIPC controversy demonstrates the effectiveness of Nigeria’s public finance safeguards rather than their failure.
“The legal path from appropriation to expenditure was broken at every material point.”
He added, “What has been described in some quarters as institutional weakness is better understood as institutional resilience.
“The controls did not discover a loss after the event; they prevented the event. They kept the money from moving.”
Lawmakers question legal basis
The hearing also exposed fresh concerns over the legal foundation upon which the Budget Office processed the council’s allocation.
Committee member Abubakar Fulata questioned the authenticity of the document presented as the Act establishing the PFIPC, arguing that it lacked the essential features of a valid Act of Parliament.
“The purported Act is very clear. It is not genuine because it did not carry the gazette number, it did not have the signature of the Clerk of the National Assembly and it did not carry the signature of Mr. President.”
Fulata faulted public institutions for failing to verify the authenticity of the documents before acting on them.
Responding, Yakubu insisted that the Budget Office did not rely on any purported Act in determining personnel costs.
“We do not rely on any instrument to calculate personnel costs other than the establishment authorisation and the directives of the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission.”
Yusuf Gagdi (APC, Plateau), Chairman of the committee, defended the Budget Office’s actions, saying evidence before the panel indicated the agency acted on official approvals that were only later discovered to be forged.
“The question is whether the Budget Office allocated budget to this agency without the agency satisfying the requirements. The answer, based on the documents before us, is no. I repeat, no.”
According to Gagdi, the committee’s investigation has moved beyond the Budget Office to determining how forged documents gained acceptance across several government institutions.
“The agency satisfied all the requirements the Budget Office needed before allocating a budget. The issue now is whether those documents were genuine. That is what this committee is investigating.”
He disclosed that the Accountant-General of the Federationwould appear before the committee on Monday to explain how the council obtained its budget code, while other Ministries, Departments and Agencies would also testify as the probe enters its final stage.
“By the special grace of God, we will conclude our findings and finish by next week.”
How the PFIPC scandal unfolded
What began as an alleged case of document forgery has rapidly snowballed into one of the most significant governance scandals confronting the Tinubu administration, raising difficult questions about the integrity of Nigeria’s public institutions, budget process and administrative safeguards.
At the centre of the controversy is the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), an organisation the Presidency insists was never established by any law, executive order or presidential directive.
Yet, despite lacking legal backing, the council allegedly secured official recognition from several government institutions, obtained a budget code and eventually appeared in the 2026 Appropriation Act with a ₦1.302 billion allocation.
The controversy first came to public attention in October 2025, when the Office of Gbajabiamila, raised the alarm over forged documents purportedly bearing his signature.
The documents claimed to establish the PFIPC, appoint Adeyemi as its Director-General and authorise the council to coordinate foreign intervention programmes on behalf of the Federal Government.
The matter took a dramatic turn after Adeyemi accused Gbajabiamila of demanding a 48 per cent kickback from the council’s proposed take-off grant, an allegation the Chief of Staff vehemently denied before instituting a ₦15 billion defamation suit.
Tinubu subsequently directed the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to investigate the matter, while the police filed criminal charges bordering on forgery, impersonation and obtaining by false pretence against Adeyemi and two others.
As more details emerged, it became apparent that the controversy extended far beyond alleged forged documents.
Investigations revealed that the council had allegedly obtained an approved manpower establishment from the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, opened domiciliary accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), corresponded with government ministries and foreign missions and secured a budget code before appearing in the 2026 federal budget.
Concerned by the implications for Nigeria’s public finance and administrative systems, the House of Representatives constituted an ad hoc committee chaired by Gagdi to investigate how an organisation the Federal Government says never legally existed managed to gain official recognition across multiple public institutions.
The committee began its public hearings on Monday with testimonies from officials whose institutions had dealings with the council.
One of the first witnesses was Didi Walson-Jack the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, whose office had approved the council’s manpower establishment. Appearing before lawmakers, Walson-Jack acknowledged that the approval was granted based on documents presented by the promoters of the council without independently verifying whether the organisation had been lawfully established.
She admitted that the documents appeared genuine because they carried what seemed to be official presidential endorsements and conceded that stronger verification measures ought to have been undertaken before the approvals were issued.
Her testimony represented the first official acknowledgement that weaknesses in administrative verification may have contributed to legitimising the controversial organisation.
The committee also heard from officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who distanced the ministry from the council.
They disclosed that the ministry became suspicious after receiving correspondence from the PFIPC and subsequently alerted the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) after questioning the authenticity of the documents presented by the organisation.
The testimony prompted lawmakers to summon Nuhu Ribadu, the National Security Adviser, and the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, as the investigation expanded to determine what actions government agencies took after concerns were first raised.
Another significant revelation came from the Central Bank of Nigeria, which confirmed that domiciliary accounts had indeed been opened in the name of the PFIPC.
Although the disclosure heightened public concern over the extent to which the council had penetrated government institutions, the apex bank maintained that the accounts remained inactive and that no public funds were deposited into them.
CBN officials explained that the accounts were opened after documentation submitted by the applicants appeared regular on its face, adding that the bank acted in accordance with standard banking procedures. Once doubts emerged over the council’s legal status, however, the accounts became part of ongoing investigations.
Throughout the hearings, lawmakers repeatedly questioned how a body now described by the Presidency as fictitious managed to obtain approvals from several government agencies without its legal status being independently verified.
The committee has also examined documents purportedly establishing the PFIPC and raised concerns about their authenticity.
Lawmakers noted apparent irregularities, including the absence of a gazette number, the signature of the Clerk to the National Assembly and evidence of presidential assent, suggesting the documents may never have constituted a valid Act of Parliament.
For Chairman of the committee, the investigation has gradually evolved beyond determining whether any laws were broken into a broader examination of institutional accountability.
Rather than focusing solely on alleged criminal conduct already under investigation by law enforcement agencies, the House panel is attempting to establish how official government processes failed to detect irregularities before the council secured recognition across multiple public institutions.
The committee has since widened its inquiry by summoning additional officials, including George Akume, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Accountant-General of the Federation, the National Security Adviser, senior officials in the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President and other agencies connected with the budget and administrative process.
As the investigation progresses, lawmakers say their objective is not only to establish individual culpability but also to identify systemic weaknesses that enabled a non-existent agency to move through several layers of government bureaucracy.
