Fake agency scandal: Atiku, ADC reject ICPC probe, demand judicial panel

Former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar,on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, PFIPC.

Atiku’s party ADC also rejected President’s directive for the anti-corruption to probe the ‘fake agency,’ insisting that only an independent judicial panel can conduct a credible probe.

The party made its position known in a statement issued on Wednesday by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi.

According to the ADC, while it welcomed the President’s decision to order an investigation, assigning the probe to the ICPC, an agency under the Executive, could undermine public confidence in the process.

“We insist, however, that only an independent judicial panel will be able to provide answers beyond all reasonable doubt to the many questions that this historic scandal has thrown up,” the statement read.

PFIPC sparked nationwide controversy after it appeared as one of the beneficiaries in the 2026 Appropriation Act despite the Presidency insisting that no such agency exists under the Federal Government.

The controversy intensified after Adeniyi Adeyemi, who presented himself as Director-General of the council, accused Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, of corruption.

But the presidency disowned Adeyemi, saying he is a fraud and being prosecuted, claims he debunked, stating that he has legitimate documents.

As public outrage intensified, Tinubu on Tuesday directed ICPC to investigate how the council was inserted into the 2026 Appropriation Act despite not being recognized by the Federal Government.

The President also ordered that everyone found culpable in the alleged budget insertion be identified and prosecuted in accordance with the law, while directing relevant authorities to unravel the circumstances that led to the controversial allocation.

In a statement issued by his Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, Tinubu directed the anti-graft agency to submit its findings within 30 days.

Reacting, ADC said it had earlier called for an independent inquiry into the matter and argued that the investigation should not be limited to the actions of a single individual.

It added that the Presidency’s initial response sought to explain away the allegations but had now accepted the need for an investigation.

The party, however, argued that the Presidency, being at the centre of the controversy, lacked the credibility to supervise the investigation.

“A Presidency that is at the very heart of a historic scandal such as this does not have the credibility to authorise an investigation into a matter that has brought an entire country into disrepute,” it said.

The opposition party also accused the Presidency of prejudging the outcome of the investigation by describing appointment letters and other documents linked to the case as forged before the probe had begun.

“The investigation must be allowed to independently determine whether the documents were forged, improperly issued, fraudulently obtained, or lawfully issued under the authority of the Presidency. The credibility of the entire exercise depends on allowing investigators to follow the evidence wherever it leads, rather than predetermining the outcome through official pronouncements,” it stated.

The ADC further called on the President to direct his Chief of Staff to proceed on leave if the investigation would examine the conduct of officials connected to the Presidency.

“As long as he remains an active official of government, it creates the impression that the President is deliberately shielding a key party in this matter,” the statement said.

The party also demanded that the full, unredacted report of the investigation be made public upon completion.

It argued that merely announcing the outcome or sanctioning a few officials would not satisfy public demands for accountability.

The ADC also condemned the reported arrest of the father of Adeyemi Adeniyi, describing it as intimidation.

“The ADC condemns the reported arrest of the father of Mr. Adeyemi Adeniyi. This act of intimidation only strengthens the impression that the government is panicking and is desperate to hide the truth rather than uncover it.

“If indeed a crime has been committed, only the suspect can be legally arrested. It is an established fact that Nigerian law does not have provision for vicarious liability,” the statement added.

The party said it would continue to monitor developments, describing the PFIPC controversy as a national security matter that should not be “swept under the Presidential red carpet.”

On his part, Atiku argued that the president’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.

In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.

He stated, “Only one week ago, the presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.

“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?

“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary. If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient. The president cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read in part.

“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.

“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents. The issue is how an organisation the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.

“Institutions do not accidentally confer legitimacy. Bureaucracies do not unknowingly sustain official-looking operations for months. Somewhere between the Presidency’s denials and the appearance of official legitimacy lies the truth Nigerians deserve to know,” he added.

Atiku also faulted the 30-day timeline given to the anti-graft agency, arguing that the case was not a fresh investigation requiring an extended period.

“This is not a fresh crime scene. It is not a newly discovered fraud. It is a matter the presidency insists had already been thoroughly investigated. If that claim is true, the ICPC should not require another month to rediscover what the police supposedly established months ago. Nigerians deserve answers within days, not another cycle of delay,” he added.

He further questioned the official chronology of events, citing reports that the father of the principal suspect was arrested only last week despite the presidency’s insistence that investigations had long been concluded.

He stated, “While the Presidency insists the investigation had effectively been concluded months ago, reports indicate that the father of the principal suspect was only arrested last week. That development naturally raises questions about the status and scope of the investigation.”

Atiku maintained that an investigation conducted by an agency of the Federal Government could not satisfy public expectations of impartiality because the government itself was at the centre of the controversy.

“What Nigerians demanded was never another internal government investigation. We demanded an independent investigation.

Meanwhile, the Senate on Wednesday declined to launch a fresh investigation into the controversial N1.3bn budgetary allocation to the purported PFIPC, saying it would await the outcome of the ongoing probe by the ICPC ordered by the President.

The decision followed a point of order raised by the Senator representing Kano South, Kawu Sumaila, who urged the upper chamber to investigate how the agency, which the Presidency has described as non-existent, secured a N1.3bn allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

As Sumaila began presenting his motion, Deputy Senate President Barau Jibrin, who presided over plenary, interrupted him, noting that the matter ought to have come before the Senate as a substantive motion.

Presenting his argument, Sumaila said the controversy surrounding the PFIPC had raised serious concerns about the integrity of the nation’s budget process.

He noted that despite the executive’s public disowning of the agency, it was allocated N1,302,978,000 under budget code 0111062001 in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

“I rise today under Order 9 and Rule 9(c) of the Senate Standing Orders, 2026, to draw the attention of this Hallowed Chamber to a matter of grave institutional concern.

“The issues raised directly affect the integrity of the Senate, the credibility of the National Assembly and the effective exercise of our constitutional oversight and appropriation responsibilities.

“Notwithstanding the executive’s public disapproval of this agency, the entirety was incorporated in the 2026 Appropriation Act under Code 0111062001 with a budgetary allocation of N1,302,978,000, thereby raising a serious question regarding the integrity of the budget preparation and appropriation process,” he stated.

According to him, the allocation comprised more than N800m for personnel costs, over N200m for overheads and more than N300m for capital expenditure.

Sumaila argued that the inclusion of a purportedly non-existent agency in the national budget undermined public confidence in the appropriation process and exposed weaknesses in legislative scrutiny.

He urged the Senate to mandate its Committees on Ethics, Code of Conduct and Public Petitions, and Appropriations to investigate how the allocation was proposed, scrutinised, justified and approved.

However, the Senate leadership opposed the proposal, citing the ongoing anti-graft investigation.

Responding, Barau said the Presidency had already directed the ICPC to investigate the matter and that the commission had commenced work.

He said the Senate should wait for the outcome of the investigation before deciding on any further legislative action.

“As I said earlier, the presidency has taken up this matter by directing that the ICPC should investigate fully how this matter came to be.

“And I think ICPC has started. I believe that what we need to do at this stage is to have the report of the ICPC, and then we can act on that report and deal with it as we feel appropriate,” Barau said.

In the meantime, the embattled Director General of the “fake” Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, has explained the reasons he established the now-defunct agency.

Matthew, while speaking with social media critic, Martins Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan, in a video call on Wednesday, revealed that it was not unconnected to his passion for Nigeria’s outlook in the world, attracting foreign investors and promoting President administration, rather than for personal interest.

He also claimed that he was not aware of his agency’s budget insertion and defence in the national budget approved by the National Assembly and assented to by the President.

The embattled DG said, “I established that amount (rumoured N400 million) for the agency’s office out of passion for the country. I wanted to bring in foreign investors to Nigeria so that I can write my name in gold. I am just desperate to serve.

“That’s the reason I paid the money. I just want to do my part for the country. That agency was established to bring in foreign investments to Nigeria and make Nigeria a preferred destination for foreign investors.

“I walk around the inter-ministerial agencies and partner with the MDAs and EFCC to make Nigeria a preferred world destination for investments. So, it’s not about personal interest. Before this whole brouhaha, we were expecting the world to be in Nigeria through our forthcoming global summit.”

Dismissing the Presidency’s stance of being alien to the agency, Matthew said, “This whole thing is confusing especially when the Presidency said that the agency does not exist. How come? The agency that found its way into the national budget. I didn’t prepare any budget. In fact, I was in detention for 23 days when the budget for the Presidential Foreign Council was prepared and defended in the National Assembly between October and November.

“The former Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, had invited me to explain how I came about the agency from the Chief of Staff to the President. I gave him the name and number of the person that facilitated the appointment letter for me. I was thereafter detained.

“How come the budget that nobody defended still found its way into the national budget? By the time I came out on November 19, 2025, I was charged in court and they said the same office space had been reallocated to another government official. So I’ve not been going to the office since October 27.”