The Senate is expected to address the controversy surrounding the N1.3 billion allocation to the disputed Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) when lawmakers resume plenary on Tuesday, following fresh allegations that the body operated for more than a year using a forged appointment letter.
According to sources within the Presidency and the civil service, the controversy stemmed from an alleged fake appointment letter bearing a forged signature purportedly belonging to the President’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila. The document was reportedly accepted without proper verification, allowing Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Mathew to secure office space at the Federal Secretariat in Abuja and present the council as a legitimate government agency.
The alleged administrative lapses are said to have extended across the Civil Service Headquarters, the Budget Office and the National Assembly, eventually leading to the inclusion of N1.3 billion for the council in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
A source within the National Assembly disclosed that Senate leaders are expected to discuss the matter during Tuesday’s plenary as public concern continues to grow over how the allocation was approved.
According to the source, the council’s proposed budget was reportedly included among other Presidency-related allocations and was not subjected to separate legislative scrutiny or a formal budget defence.
Presidency officials explained that appointments to agencies under the Presidency are constitutionally approved by the President and formalised through the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), rather than the Office of the Chief of Staff.
Another senior civil servant alleged that the suspect exploited weaknesses in administrative procedures by presenting a forged appointment letter to obtain official office accommodation, which subsequently gave the organisation an appearance of legitimacy.
The official noted that once the office was allocated within the Federal Secretariat, the council was able to operate with official letterheads, a website and other features that reinforced its credibility until concerns were eventually raised.
Sources further disclosed that the issue first came to the attention of authorities after the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) questioned the council’s activities, claiming they overlapped with its statutory responsibilities. The matter was later referred to the Chief of Staff, who reportedly denied any knowledge of the individual involved and alerted security agencies.
Although the office was eventually sealed following Adeyemi’s arrest, officials alleged that he continued operating from another location.
Another Presidency source claimed the disputed budget allocation may have been facilitated through contacts within the National Assembly after the council had already established an appearance of legitimacy.
Meanwhile, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has requested the release of documents detailing how the N1.3 billion allocation was approved, including records identifying lawmakers and government officials involved in the process. The organisation warned it could institute legal action if the requested information is not provided within seven days.
The Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA) also called for an independent public investigation, demanding clarity on how a non-existent agency allegedly secured a budget allocation.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar described the controversy as a reflection of broader governance failures and urged President Bola Tinubu to order an independent investigation into the matter.
The Tanimu Turaki-led faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), and the Kwankwasiyya Movement also called for greater accountability, transparency and a comprehensive probe into the circumstances surrounding the allocation.
Responding to the growing controversy, Deputy House of Representatives Spokesman Philip Agbese urged Nigerians to allow the judicial process to take its course, assuring that the facts surrounding the matter would emerge through the legal proceedings.
