The House of Representatives has shifted its focus from individual wrongdoing to systemic flaws as its investigation into the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) nears conclusion. Lawmakers now seek to identify bureaucratic loopholes that enabled the alleged fake agency to secure government approvals, including a N1.302 billion budget allocation.
Budget Office blocks funds despite allocation
Tanimu Yakubu, Director-General of the Budget Office, told lawmakers that no money was released to the PFIPC. He stated his office followed due process based on documents provided by other government institutions—documents later discovered to be forged.
The Budget Office did not create the council, assign its budget code, approve its establishment, or grant its recruitment waiver, Yakubu said. It received official instruments and complied with legal requirements.
The office rejected the council’s initial request for N3.85 billion in personnel costs, calculating its own estimate of N802.9 million. That amount was later included in the executive budget proposal, which the National Assembly approved.
Yakubu clarified that appropriation alone does not guarantee access to funds. “An appropriation is authority in law to make provision for expenditure. It is not a cheque, warrant, or cash released from the treasury.”
Related: Webotee Unveils AI-Integrated Amazon Market Connector
He confirmed the Budget Office never issued financial clearance for the PFIPC, as the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission had not certified its staffing structure. Without clearance, no recruitment, payroll enrollment, or salary payments could occur. No funds from the personnel provision were drawn, he added.
The council’s N200 million overhead allocation also went unused, as no treasury warrants or cash backing were issued.
He argued the case highlights the strength of Nigeria’s public finance controls rather than their failure. The legal path from appropriation to expenditure was blocked at every critical point.
Forged documents exposed across agencies
The investigation revealed how the PFIPC, which the Presidency insists was never legally established, obtained approvals from multiple government bodies. The Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation approved its manpower establishment, while the Accountant-General of the Federation assigned it a budget code. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) even opened domiciliary accounts in its name, though those accounts remained inactive.
Committee member Abubakar Fulata questioned the authenticity of the PFIPC’s founding documents, noting they lacked key legal features. The purported Act did not carry a gazette number, the Clerk of the National Assembly’s signature, or the President’s signature.
Yakubu explained that the Budget Office relied on establishment authorizations and salary commission directives when calculating personnel costs. Committee chairman Yusuf Gagdi defended the Budget Office’s actions, stating it acted on what appeared to be official approvals.
Related: European countries attract millionaires, others lose them
The probe now includes testimonies from the Accountant-General and other agencies to determine how forged documents gained acceptance across government. Gagdi said the committee expects to finalize its findings soon.
The scandal emerged in October 2025 when the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President reported forged documents bearing his signature. Those documents claimed to establish the PFIPC and appoint Adeyemi as its director-general. Adeyemi later accused the Chief of Staff of demanding a 48% kickback from the council’s proposed funding, a claim the Chief of Staff denied, filing a N15 billion defamation suit in response.
President Bola Tinubu directed the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to investigate, while police charged Adeyemi and two others with forgery and obtaining by false pretence. The case exposed broader weaknesses in administrative safeguards, showing how an unrecognized entity could move through government approvals without detection.
Nigeria’s budget process has faced scrutiny before. Past scandals, like the 2016 “budget padding” controversy, revealed how unauthorized insertions could enter appropriations. The PFIPC case stands out for its scale—how a single forged document spread through agencies, each assuming another had verified its legitimacy. The hearings point to a pattern of trust without verification, where official-looking paperwork alone triggered approvals.
The committee’s final report may recommend stricter document authentication protocols. For now, efforts continue to close gaps that allowed the PFIPC to operate undetected, even if no public funds were disbursed.