Picnews
The Senate is set to address the controversy surrounding the N1.3 billion allocation to the disputed Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) in the 2026 Appropriation Act as lawmakers resume plenary on Tuesday.
The development follows revelations that an alleged forged appointment letter, bearing a falsified signature purportedly belonging to the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, was reportedly accepted within the civil service system without adequate verification, allowing Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Mathew to secure an office at the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja and operate under the appearance of a legitimate government agency for over a year.
Sources within the Presidency and civil service, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, said the controversy could have been prevented if existing bureaucratic verification procedures had functioned effectively across relevant institutions, including the Budget Office, National Assembly and Civil Service Headquarters.
The sources alleged that the failure to authenticate the appointment document enabled the controversial council to engage with government agencies, diplomatic missions, ministries, lawmakers and private individuals.
It was gathered that the controversial N1.3 billion allocation was approved without Adeyemi or any representative of the council appearing before the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service to defend the budget proposal.
A National Assembly source claimed the budget entry was introduced through a process that did not allow proper scrutiny.
The source said the allocation was not presented as a standalone item but was included alongside other provisions linked to the Presidency, leaving little opportunity for oversight or budget defence.
The source added that the Senate leadership was expected to address the matter during Tuesday’s sitting in order to clarify issues surrounding the allocation and alleged institutional failures.
According to Presidency and civil service sources, the alleged fraud bypassed several layers of administrative checks because the appointment document itself was reportedly invalid.
One source explained that under established government procedures, appointments at such levels are made by the President, while official appointment letters are issued through the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), not the Chief of Staff.
The source noted that the Chief of Staff does not possess the authority to appoint heads of government agencies, permanent secretaries or directors-general, stressing that all such appointments originate from the President.
A senior civil servant who reviewed the disputed document after Adeyemi’s arrest alleged that the suspect exploited a bureaucratic gap by presenting a forged appointment letter to obtain official recognition.
According to the official, securing office space at the Federal Secretariat further gave the alleged council an appearance of legitimacy, allowing it to operate with government-style documents and engage with stakeholders before concerns were raised.
The official confirmed that the office was later sealed following Adeyemi’s arrest and subsequently reassigned, although he allegedly continued activities outside the premises.
A Presidency source said the matter was initially brought to attention by officials of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC), who observed that the council was encroaching on areas within its statutory responsibilities.
The source stated that the issue was later reported to the Chief of Staff, who reportedly denied knowledge of Adeyemi or the council and subsequently alerted relevant security agencies.
The source added that the Chief of Staff maintained that he had never met Adeyemi and supported investigations into the matter.
Meanwhile, the N1.3 billion allocation has continued to attract reactions from civil society organisations and opposition groups, with calls for transparency and investigation.
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has requested certified copies of documents relating to the consideration and approval of the N1,302,978,784 allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
SERAP also requested details of lawmakers involved in considering the allocation, officials who defended the provision, and clarification on whether the funding was included in the executive proposal or introduced during the legislative process.
The organisation argued that Nigerians deserve to know how public funds were allocated to an entity whose legal status has become a subject of controversy.
Similarly, the Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA) called for a comprehensive public inquiry into the matter, demanding explanations on how the allocation entered the national budget.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar also criticised the development, describing the controversy as a reflection of wider concerns about accountability and governance.
Through his spokesperson, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku urged the Federal Government to provide answers and order an independent investigation into the matter.
The Tanimu Turaki-led faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) also described the controversy as evidence of alleged weaknesses within government institutions, demanding accountability from those responsible.
The Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) called for an independent investigation, stating that allegations of forgery, impersonation, financial misconduct and abuse of office must be thoroughly examined.
The Kwankwasiyya Movement equally demanded clarification on how an allegedly non-existent council secured budgetary allocation, government recognition and operational space.
However, Deputy Spokesman of the House of Representatives, Philip Agbese, urged Nigerians to allow due process take its course, saying the courts should determine the facts surrounding the controversy.
Meanwhile, some senior lawyers have cautioned against calls for the prosecution of Gbajabiamila, arguing that criminal liability must be established through evidence rather than public sentiment.
They maintained that allegations alone were insufficient grounds for criminal charges and stressed the importance of allowing investigations to determine the roles of all individuals involved.
Another legal expert questioned why only Adeyemi had been charged when, according to him, the alleged scheme appeared to involve multiple individuals and institutions.
Adeyemi is expected to appear before the Federal High Court in Abuja on July 27, 2026, alongside two other suspects identified as Femi and Anu, who are reportedly still at large.
