PFIPC probe deepens as N1.3bn remains unspent

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.

Fiscal oversight blocked the flow of money

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 authorized 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.

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. 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.

Forged documents bypassed checks

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 Federation would 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.