PFIPC Probe: Adeyemi Sets Conditions For Reps Interrogation

By Opeyemi Adelakun

The detained promoter of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, Adeniyi Adeyemi, has demanded the presence of his lawyers and journalists before he will submit to questioning by the House of Representatives committee investigating the council.

Adeyemi’s demand comes as the committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, continues its inquiry into how the PFIPC allegedly obtained government recognition, operated from an office at the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja and secured more than N1.32bn in the 2026 Appropriation Act despite questions over its legal status.

As of Sunday, however, the committee had yet to settle the venue for Adeyemi’s appearance.

A source familiar with the proceedings confirmed the development, saying there was “No decision yet” when asked whether a location had been fixed for the interrogation.

The committee’s uncertainty over the venue follows hearings involving several senior government officials, including the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack; the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Tanimu Yakubu; the Director of Banking Services at the Central Bank of Nigeria, Hamisu Abdullahi; and representatives of the Inspector-General of Police.

The testimonies have formed part of the lawmakers’ effort to establish how Adeyemi allegedly presented himself as the head of the PFIPC and gained access to government structures and processes.

Adeyemi, who remains in police custody, had previously indicated through his legal representatives that he was prepared to face the lawmakers and respond to allegations against him, but objected to being questioned privately.

His lawyer, Ademola Oyedokun, had urged the committee to conduct the session publicly, arguing that allegations against his client had already been made in public.

“We have read that the committee intends to interview our client at an undisclosed date and place. We ask it, respectfully, to think again,” Oyedokun said.

“Everyone else in this matter has been heard in public, and what has been said about our client was said in public. He should be allowed to answer in the same place it was said,” he added.

The committee had earlier said it would question Adeyemi at an undisclosed location because he remained in police custody.

Gagdi explained that the arrangement was intended to prevent the National Assembly’s investigation from interfering with ongoing investigations by the Nigeria Police Force, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission.

He also said lawmakers could not disregard a court order under which Adeyemi was being detained.

Family Raises Concern Over Lawyers’ Absence

Adeyemi’s family had earlier accused members of the House committee of attempting to question him in police custody without his lawyers present.

His brother, Peter, said the detained promoter declined to answer questions because his legal representatives were not available.

“The Reps committee came and wanted to interrogate him, but he refused. They are still there trying to make him talk without any of his lawyers being present. We are crying out loud so that the right thing would be done,” he said.

According to him, Adeyemi was not refusing to defend himself but wanted to be given the same opportunity to respond as those who had made allegations against him.

A family source later said Adeyemi made the presence of journalists another condition for his appearance.

“They eventually rescheduled to Monday and my brother told them that when they are coming, they should come with the media, otherwise he will not grant them audience,” the source said.

The source alleged that although the committee initially agreed to the presence of the media, it later changed its position.

The police, meanwhile, said access to a person in custody could be granted where visitors met the required conditions.

Police spokesperson, Ani Ineidu, said, “Yes, if they have necessary documents. I’m not aware if they have relevant documents or authorisation, but if they fulfil the conditions, everybody who is under police custody has a right to visitors.”

CUPP Demands Wider Investigation

While the House prepares to hear from Adeyemi, the Coalition of United Political Parties has rejected the ICPC’s reported findings on the controversy, describing the investigation as inadequate.

The coalition said the central question remained unresolved: how an organisation allegedly lacking a legal foundation was able to operate within government circles and receive a budgetary allocation running into billions of naira.

CUPP spokesperson, Agu Bryan, described the ICPC probe as “nothing short of a charade”, alleging that its findings placed disproportionate responsibility on Adeyemi while failing to establish whether government officials enabled his activities.

“As Nigerians, we know that someone could not have operated an alleged high-profile agency of such magnitude without enablers, either within the Presidency or across the government agencies involved,” Bryan said.

He called for scrutiny of institutions allegedly referenced in documents and correspondence connected with the PFIPC, including the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.

Bryan also pointed to testimony that the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation failed to conduct due diligence on some documents linked to the council.

How Did PFIPC Enter The Budget?

For CUPP, one of the biggest unanswered questions concerns the appearance of the PFIPC in the 2026 national budget.

The coalition questioned how a body reportedly found by investigators not to have been legally established could have obtained a budget line and secured an allocation exceeding N1.32bn.

“The National Assembly, particularly the House of Representatives, which appropriated funds to an agency that, according to the investigation, never existed as a creation of law, also owes Nigerians an explanation,” Bryan said.

He asked which officials within the Ministry of Budget and National Planning processed the allocation and what verification procedures were followed before the funds were appropriated.

The coalition also raised questions about the alleged recruitment of hundreds of workers and the extent of access Adeyemi enjoyed within official government circles.

According to Bryan, investigators should look beyond the alleged forgery of documents and determine how Adeyemi allegedly navigated government institutions and processes for an extended period.

The controversy deepened after investigators reportedly established that a signature attributed to the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, was forged.

Bryan said that discovery should lead investigators to examine other documents and official correspondence allegedly used by Adeyemi.

“It is commendable that the House and the Police have established that the signature of the Chief of Staff to the President was allegedly forged. But that raises another critical question: how many other documents, official correspondences and signatures allegedly used by Adeyemi were also forged?” he asked.

Fair Hearing Becomes Another Issue

CUPP also questioned whether Adeyemi had been given sufficient opportunity to respond directly to the allegations against him.

“Was Adeyemi given fair hearing thus far? Has he been given the privilege to appear before the Yusuf Gagdi-led Ad hoc Committee of the House of Representatives probing the matter to be interrogated and directly answer questions?” Bryan asked.

He invoked the legal principle nemo judex in causa sua, arguing that the investigation must be conducted in a manner that is independent and transparent.

Bryan further called for the involvement of independent professional bodies, including the Nigerian Bar Association, the West African Bar Association or private and international investigators, if the Federal Government wants the controversy fully resolved.

“If President Tinubu is determined to unravel the truth, independent organisations or bodies like the NBA, West African Bar Association or international or private investigators should be allowed to come in and take over the investigation,” he said.

The allegations against the security and anti-corruption agencies have not been accepted by the agencies.

With Adeyemi expected to face the lawmakers, attention is now shifting to what he will tell the committee about the establishment and operations of the PFIPC, its access to government facilities, its alleged participation in official processes and the circumstances surrounding its budgetary allocation.