The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) yesterday told the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the legal basis, operations and budgetary inclusion of the ‘phantom’ Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) that it received authorisation from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) to open two domiciliary accounts for the council.
The revelation from the apex bank is coming as the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) on Monday questioned the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, over allegations against him by the purported Director General of the council, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi.
Adeyemi had alleged that he paid N400 million to Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila through the late Babatunde Dolapo Tanimola to secure the appointment. He also claimed that the Chief of Staff allegedly demanded 48 per cent from the agency’s N27.3 billion take-off grant. Gbajabiamila had debunked the allegations and filed a N15bn defamation suit against Adeyemi.
Also, over N1.3 billion was allocated to the PFIPC in the approved 2026 budget, raising questions on how the ‘fictitious’ council found its way into the budget without the National Assembly spotting it.
Findings further revealed that Adeyemi got approvals for the employment of 300 staff members and an office space at the Federal Secretariat, Abuja, and opened accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
But the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation (OAGF) insisted that the disputed council had no account with the apex bank, contradicting the Presidency’s statement that Adeyemi used fake documents and misled the OAGF to fraudulently open a CBN account.
While appearing before the probe panel shortly after the inauguration of the ad hoc committee at the National Assembly on Monday, a director at the CBN, Hamisu Abdullahi, who represented the CBN Governor at the investigative hearing, disclosed that the apex bank received a mandate from the OAGF to open two domiciliary accounts for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.
According to him, the accounts, one United States dollar domiciliary account and one Pound Sterling domiciliary account, were opened on July 30, 2025.
He, however, informed lawmakers that the accounts remained inactive because the council failed to provide authorised signatories required for their operation.
“The process for opening the account requires a mandate from the office of the Account General of the Federation. So once we receive that mandate, we perform all the necessary verification to confirm that this mandate is actually coming from the Office of the Accountant General. So once we confirm that, we have some internal procedures too, which we follow to open those accounts.
“On the 30th of July 2025, we received a mandate dated 29 July 2025 from the office of the Accountant-General of the Federation to the Central Bank of Nigeria to open two domiciliary accounts for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/ Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.
“Based on that mandate, we did the normal verification to confirm the genuineness of the mandate and also process the account opening. And two accounts were actually opened: a domiciliary account, one dollar account and one pound sterling account for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/ Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion. Those two accounts remain inactive with zero balance and have never been operated,” Abdullahi stated.
He further disclosed that there had been no financial activities linked to the accounts, including foreign exchange allocations, remittances, inflows or outflows.
“There have been no foreign exchange allocations, no remittances, no inflows and no outflows. The accounts have maintained zero balance from inception to date,” he said.
The CBN official explained that the bank does not have direct dealings with Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) on account opening, closure or change of account details except through the OAGF.
“As a banker to the federal government, the Central Bank has responsibility for opening all accounts for Ministries, Departments and Agencies, with the exception of those exempted from the Treasury Single Account,” he said.
Abdullahi added that the apex bank had no direct correspondence with the council regarding the operation of the accounts.
On her part, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs Didi Esther Walson-Jack, told the committee that her office had no constitutional responsibility for establishing government agencies.
She explained that while the office approves administrative structures of federal agencies, the establishment of such agencies falls outside its mandate.
“The approval and establishment of agencies is not within the purview of the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (OHCSF). However, the OHCSF is responsible for approving the administrative structure of federal government agencies,” she said.
The OHCSF representative disclosed that the council had submitted a request for approval of its organisational structure on August 6, 2025, but the request was not granted because the required documents were not provided.
She, however, stated that during the 2025 annual manpower budget defence exercise, officials of the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council requested an authorised establishment and recruitment waiver.
According to her, the council informed the office that 14 officers, including the Director-General/Chief Executive Officer, were already working with the body and sought approval to commence full operations.
She added that the request was processed alongside those of 87 other MDAs and later approved as part of the fourth batch of manpower approvals.
The approval provided for 314 positions, comprising 14 existing officers and 300 additional positions.
However, the OHCSF disclosed that it later discovered irregularities in documents submitted by the council as its enabling legal instrument.
“It was observed that the document presented by the council as its enabling law or legal instrument did not really carry the requisite features,” she told lawmakers.
The Head of Service also denied deploying civil servants to the council or allocating office accommodation to it.
“We wish to state that there was no deployment of staff by the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation to the council,” she said.
She added that reports linking the office to the allocation of accommodation at the Federal Secretariat Phase III were incorrect.
Meanwhile, the panel has directed the CBN to provide comprehensive records of all financial transactions linked to the council.
House Expects Truth, Not Rehearsed Script – Speaker Abbas
Earlier, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Abbas Tajudeen, inaugurated the ad hoc committee to investigate the legal basis, operations and budgetary inclusion of the PFIPC, saying the exercise was aimed at establishing facts rather than validating speculation.
Speaking at the inauguration at the National Assembly, Abbas said the committee would determine whether the council was lawfully established and whether due process was followed in its inclusion in the federal budget framework.
The committee, chaired by Rep. Yusuf Adamu Gagdi (APC, Plateau), was constituted following public concerns over the council’s legal status, institutional mandate and relationship with existing government agencies.
Abbas said the investigation underscored the House’s commitment to transparency, accountability and effective parliamentary oversight.
“Today (Monday), we convene to exercise our constitutional oversight by formally inaugurating the Ad Hoc Committee to probe the existence and operations of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council and its placement within the federal budget framework,” he said.
The Speaker said the House was responding to growing public interest in the council, noting that questions had been raised over its legal foundation, operational framework, funding and appearance in the federal budget despite uncertainty surrounding its establishment.
“These questions deserve clear, factual and authoritative answers. The House of Representatives has therefore not constituted this committee to validate speculation or amplify controversy. Neither is this a political exercise. Our objective is simply to establish the facts,” Abbas said.
He added that parliamentary investigations were designed to ensure that “facts prevail over rumours, evidence over conjecture and accountability over opacity.”
The Speaker outlined the committee’s terms of reference, directing it to determine the legal basis for the establishment and operation of the council, investigate the processes leading to its creation and ascertain whether they complied with the Constitution and other extant laws.
He said the committee would also examine the council’s mandate, governance structure, funding sources, operational activities and relationship with statutory agencies responsible for investment promotion, economic planning and public finance.
The panel is also expected to investigate how the council was included in the federal budget framework, identify the approvals and budgetary processes involved and determine whether due process was followed.
Abbas further tasked the committee with examining possible duplication of statutory functions with existing government institutions and assessing the implications for public administration, fiscal responsibility and institutional efficiency.
He urged the committee to receive memoranda from MDAs, constitutional bodies, experts, civil society organisations and members of the public before making recommendations on any legislative or administrative reforms required to strengthen transparency and accountability.
“This inquiry is not about personalities. It is about institutions and the integrity of public administration. Every public institution must derive its authority from law and exercise its responsibilities within the limits prescribed by law,” he said.
The Speaker also called on all public officials and stakeholders invited to appear before the committee to cooperate fully by providing truthful and complete information.
“This House expects the truth, not rehearsed scripts or defensive posturing. Nigerians deserve candour. They deserve explanations that withstand scrutiny. They deserve to know, with absolute certainty, that their public institutions operate within the law,” he added.
In his remarks at the inauguration, the committee chairman, Gagdi, assured Nigerians that the panel would conduct the investigation with fairness, professionalism and impartiality.
He said the committee would objectively examine the circumstances surrounding the alleged establishment and operations of the council, engage all relevant stakeholders, review available evidence and submit its findings to the House.
“Our mandate is to objectively examine the circumstances surrounding the alleged establishment and operations of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, determine whether due constitutional and statutory processes were followed, engage all relevant stakeholders, carefully review the available evidence, and submit appropriate findings and recommendations to the House,” Gagdi said.
He assured that every individual and institution connected to the investigation would be given a fair hearing, adding that the committee’s proceedings would be guided by the Constitution, due process and the principles of natural justice.
Gagdi expressed confidence that the committee’s work would assist the House in taking informed decisions while strengthening democratic institutions and promoting the rule of law.
The committee is expected to submit its report to the House after concluding its investigation.
Meanwhile, the committee has invited key government officials and heads of strategic agencies to appear before it as part of its investigation. Those invited include the Ministers of Budget and Economic Planning; Finance; Industry, Trade and Investment; Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation and Foreign Affairs.
Also expected to appear are the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Auditor-General for the Federation, Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC), Chairman of the Fiscal Responsibility Commission (FRC), Chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), and the Inspector-General of Police (IGP).
ICPC Questions Gbajabiamila
In a related development, the ICPC has questioned the Chief of Staff to the President over his alleged link with the disputed council, following a directive to the commission by President Bola Tinubu to probe the matter within 30 days.
On Monday, Jiti Ogunye, counsel for Gbajabiamila, confirmed that his client was questioned by the ICPC.
“In full cooperation with the ICPC acting as directed by the President of Nigeria, I hereby confirm that my client, Femi Gbajabiamila, Chief of Staff to the President of Nigeria, responded to the invitation of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission and appeared at about 15:00hrs on Monday, July 20, 2026, as part of the ongoing investigation into the activities of the ‘PFIPC’ fake agency, among others.”
“My client gave his testimony, responded to questions accordingly, and has returned to his duty post,” Ogunye said in a brief statement.
Reps’ Many Probes
Since its inauguration, the 10th House of Representatives has initiated a string of high-profile investigations into alleged corruption, financial mismanagement, procurement breaches and administrative infractions across several sectors. Among them was the July 3, 2024 probe into the alleged diversion of N1.12 trillion disbursed under the Central Bank of Nigeria’s Anchor Borrowers Programme.
This was followed on July 10, 2024, by an investigation into alleged financial irregularities in the Federal Ministry of Women Affairs, including the non-payment of N1.5 billion owed to contractors despite the release of funds. On July 18, 2024, lawmakers ordered a probe into allegations that international oil companies were frustrating the operations of the Dangote Refinery through the refusal to supply crude oil.
Earlier, on June 6, 2024, the House resolved to investigate alleged fraudulent land allocations and issuance of land titles in the Federal Capital Territory, while in May 2024, it opened an inquiry into the dismissal of over 600 Central Bank of Nigeria staff. Also in May 2024, lawmakers constituted an ad hoc committee to examine the procurement process for the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway project over alleged violations of procurement laws.
In March 2024, the House launched an investigation into the sharp increase in cement prices amid allegations of price manipulation by manufacturers, while on February 3, 2024, it mandated a probe into certificate racketeering involving foreign and local universities, government officials and beneficiaries.
The House had earlier, on November 23, 2023, commenced an investigation into the utilisation of N62 billion in federal intervention funds and donor support for HIV/AIDS programmes. A day earlier, on November 22, 2023, it ordered a probe into alleged revenue leakages through the Remita payment platform.
On October 26, 2023, lawmakers directed an investigation into exorbitant international airfares and poor service delivery by foreign airlines operating in Nigeria, while on October 4, 2023, they initiated a probe into the alleged indiscriminate issuance of “Certificates of No Objection” by the Bureau of Public Procurement.
The House also began investigating widespread job racketeering and abuse of the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS) on July 25, 2023, following allegations of illegal recruitment, bribery and payroll fraud involving Ministries, Departments and Agencies.
Although these investigations were launched to strengthen accountability, curb corruption and ensure prudent management of public resources, many have either stalled or remain inconclusive long after their commencement.
Several committees have yet to submit reports within the timelines set by the House, while others have produced recommendations that critics say have yielded little tangible action.
Observers argue that the legislature’s lack of constitutional powers to prosecute offenders, coupled with weak implementation of its resolutions, has continued to limit the overall impact of many of its probes.
WARNING: If You Are Not 18+, Don’t Click The Link Below 👇🫣
Did you want to monetize your website, join MONETAG or ADSKEEPER and start earning
Please don’t forget to “Allow the notification” so you will be the first to get our gist when we publish it.
Drop your comment in the section below, and don’t forget to share the post.
Never Miss A Single News Or Gist, Kindly Join Us On WhatsApp Channel:
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vad8g81Eawdsio6INn3B
Telegram Channel:
https://t.me/gistsmateNG
