Fresh controversy has emerged over the alleged Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) following the circulation of official-looking letters from both chambers of the National Assembly addressed to its purported Director-General, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew.
The documents, which are yet to be independently verified, suggest that the agency—despite being described by the Presidency as fictitious—may have had some level of engagement with federal lawmakers.
One of the letters, reportedly from the Senate and dated September 2, 2025, invited the agency’s Director-General to nominate participants for a high-level study exchange programme on anti-corruption policy and institutional reforms in London.
Another correspondence from the House of Representatives Committee on Treaties, Protocols and Agreements, dated September 3, 2025, also invited the agency to an executive exchange programme in Casablanca, Morocco, focused on strengthening Nigeria’s capacity in treaty negotiations and compliance.
The emergence of these letters adds to ongoing disputes surrounding the legitimacy of the PFIPC, which the Presidency has previously dismissed as non-existent. Officials have accused Adeniyi of falsely creating and operating the agency, including allegedly securing office space at the Federal Secretariat, opening accounts, and inserting the organisation into the national budget.
The Presidency further claimed that large sums were associated with the agency in the 2026 budget, while also alleging that it functioned without proper authorisation.
However, Adeniyi has denied the allegations, insisting that the agency’s establishment and operations were known to senior government officials. He also maintains that he legitimately held the position of Director-General and carried out official engagements both locally and internationally.
The controversy has also drawn attention to claims that the agency operated with a Treasury Single Account arrangement and reportedly employed hundreds of staff, raising questions about how it functioned within government systems if it was not formally recognised.
Additional allegations and counter-allegations have emerged involving senior officials, including claims of financial demands and political disagreements linked to the agency’s formation and funding.
Adeniyi has also called for investigations into related incidents, including the death of an alleged intermediary connected to his dealings with government officials.
As investigations continue, the case has intensified debate over bureaucratic oversight, institutional accountability, and the verification of government agencies within Nigeria’s administrative structure.
