Fresh controversy has emerged over the status of the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), as official documents from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) appear to contradict the Presidency’s claim that the body never maintained an account with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
The documents indicate that the OAGF officially requested the opening of domiciliary accounts for the PFIPC at the CBN, raising fresh questions over how the council allegedly obtained recognition within government institutions despite being described by the Presidency as a fictitious organisation.
ALSO READ Documents show SGF’s office approved Adeyemi’s Canada trip despite PFIPC controversy
According to the documents, the OAGF wrote to the CBN seeking the creation of dollar and pound sterling accounts for the PFIPC. The apex bank subsequently confirmed the opening of the accounts and provided the relevant account details.
The revelation contrasts with the Presidency’s recent assertion that although the alleged council fraudulently secured a CBN account using forged documents, no government funds were paid into it, and the organisation had no legal existence.
The latest disclosures have intensified scrutiny of the roles played by public institutions in processing requests linked to the council.
The documents also suggest that the OAGF treated the PFIPC as a recognised entity during the processing of its requests, including correspondence relating to financial operations.
The controversy stems from allegations involving Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, who is facing prosecution over allegations of forgery, impersonation and obtaining by false pretence in connection with the purported council.
The Presidency has maintained that the council was never established by the Federal Government and insists that Adeyemi allegedly relied on forged documents to present himself as its Director-General.
However, the emergence of official correspondence involving the OAGF and the CBN has fuelled calls for a broader investigation into how multiple government agencies processed requests associated with the council.
The development comes amid growing public debate over possible institutional lapses and demands for greater accountability regarding the alleged operations of the PFIPC.
