Fake Agency: Reps Panel Divided Over Final Report

The House of Representatives committee investigating the alleged fake Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council has been unable to complete its final report due to disagreements among its members.

The 12-member ad hoc committee, led by Plateau State lawmaker Yusuf Gagdi, has been investigating how the organisation operated and gained access to government institutions for more than a month.

The panel is now working on its report, which is expected to be presented to the House when lawmakers resume plenary.
During the investigation, the committee questioned several senior government officials, including the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack; the Central Bank of Nigeria’s Director of Banking Services, Hamisu Abdullahi; the Director-General of the Budget Office, Tanimu Yakubu; and Joshua Luka from the Federal Projects Financial Management Department in the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation.

The officials were asked to explain their involvement in processes that allowed the purported agency to appear within government structures.

The government institutions told the committee that they relied on documents and information provided by Adeniyi Adeyemi, who presented himself as the organisation’s Director-General.

Adeyemi had alleged that he paid N400 million through a proxy to the Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, Femi Gbajabiamila, to help secure his appointment as the agency’s Director-General. He later clarified that he had never personally met Gbajabiamila.

The Presidency and Gbajabiamila denied the allegation and said the organisation had no legal existence. They also accused Adeyemi of producing false government documents in connection with the matter.

The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission separately investigated the issue and cleared the Presidency of wrongdoing while recommending that Adeyemi face prosecution.

The committee had earlier indicated that it would address journalists after questioning the government agencies involved. That briefing has yet to take place.

The panel had also planned to question Adeyemi at a location that was not disclosed. However, the plan reportedly faced difficulties after Adeyemi demanded that his appearance be conducted openly with journalists and his lawyers present.

Another point of disagreement among committee members is whether Gbajabiamila should be formally invited to appear before the panel.

Some members reportedly believe the Chief of Staff should be given an opportunity to respond because his name was mentioned in Adeyemi’s allegations. They are concerned that excluding him could raise questions about the fairness of the final report.

There is also a proposal that the committee should approach the court to allow Adeyemi to appear before it publicly and give evidence.
The disagreements have contributed to the delay in completing the report.

Amnesty International Nigeria has also criticised the handling of the matter and called for an independent investigation.
The organisation’s Nigeria Country Director, Isa Sanusi, said the controversy exposed weaknesses in government institutions and raised concerns about the ability of government officials to investigate an issue involving people within the same system.

Transparency International Nigeria has also expressed concern about the direction of the parliamentary investigation.

Its Executive Director, Auwal Rafsanjani, said the inquiry should provide answers to how an organisation described by the Presidency as fictitious was able to move through different levels of government, secure office space within the Federal Secretariat and appear in the 2026 Appropriation Act with an allocation of more than N1.3 billion.

Rafsanjani said the investigation should not focus only on the allegations against Adeyemi. He called for other individuals whose names or roles are linked to the controversy to be given an opportunity to appear before the committee.

The controversy has therefore widened beyond the alleged activities of Adeyemi, with questions now being raised about how the purported agency gained access to government systems and received recognition from different public institutions.

The committee’s next steps, including whether it will invite Gbajabiamila and secure Adeyemi’s appearance, could determine when the final report will be completed and submitted to the House.