The Accountant-General of the Federation (AGF), Dr. Shamseldeen Babatunde Ogunjimi, has explained how the controversial Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), now described by the Federal Government as a fictitious entity, managed to secure official recognition and access to government processes.
The explanation has added a fresh dimension to the growing controversy surrounding the alleged fake agency, which reportedly appeared in the 2026 Appropriation Act, secured office accommodation within the Federal Secretariat and obtained government approvals before its existence was publicly challenged.
According to records cited in the unfolding investigation, the alleged Director-General of the PFIPC, Adeniyi Adeyemi, presented documents purportedly showing that the council had been approved by the Presidency.
Adeyemi reportedly used official-looking correspondence and letterheads to communicate with government institutions, creating the impression that the organisation was a legitimate federal government entity.
ALSO READ PFIPC: BMO rejects claim that Buhari administration created ‘fake agency’
The controversy began after the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, reported Adeyemi to security agencies, alleging that official documents, signatures, seals and reference numbers had been forged.
The Presidency subsequently maintained that neither the PFIPC nor Adeyemi’s purported appointment had presidential approval.
However, questions have persisted over how an organisation that the government now describes as fictitious was able to interact with several government institutions and move through official administrative channels.
Documents cited in reports on the controversy indicate that Adeyemi, presenting himself as the head of the PFIPC, wrote to the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF) in November 2024 seeking office accommodation.
The request was reportedly forwarded to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), alongside requests from other government agencies, for possible allocation of recovered government properties.
ALSO READ PFIPC: Fake agency originated during Buhari administration – Budget Office
The alleged council subsequently operated from an office at the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja, although questions remain over the precise circumstances under which the accommodation was approved.
The PFIPC also reportedly approached the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) for recognition as a self-accounting government entity.
In January 2025, Adeyemi allegedly wrote to the OAGF seeking approval for self-accounting status, claiming that the organisation had already been assigned an administrative code in the National Chart of Accounts.
The OAGF reportedly responded by outlining conditions that had to be met before such status could be granted. These included an internal audit unit, an approved accounting code, accounting and audit manuals, appropriate office infrastructure, a secure voucher room and adequate manpower.
Adeyemi later informed the OAGF that the purported organisation had fulfilled the requirements and requested verification.
ALSO READ CBN: PFIPC accounts remained inactive despite opening two domiciliary accounts
The OAGF subsequently granted the PFIPC provisional self-accounting status for six months, according to documents cited in reports on the matter.
The development is now at the centre of questions about how a body allegedly created through forged documents could satisfy administrative requirements and receive recognition from a key government financial institution.
The controversy also extended to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). Records reportedly show that the OAGF, acting on a request attributed to Adeyemi, wrote to the CBN seeking the creation of domiciliary accounts for government entities, including the PFIPC.
The CBN subsequently confirmed the creation of dollar and pound accounts associated with the name Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council World Investment Summit.
However, the Presidency has maintained that the alleged agency was never legally established and that no public funds were released to it.
The PFIPC also reportedly appeared in the 2026 national budget with an allocation of about ₦1.3 billion, further deepening the controversy.
The inclusion has raised questions about the budgetary process, as proposals typically pass through several stages involving government ministries, departments and agencies, the Budget Office, the executive and the National Assembly before becoming part of the Appropriation Act.
The controversy has therefore shifted beyond the alleged forgery case involving Adeyemi to broader concerns about institutional due diligence and oversight within government.
Questions have been raised about how the alleged fake agency secured office accommodation, obtained provisional self-accounting status, interacted with government agencies and appeared in the national budget without being detected earlier.
The Presidency has insisted that Adeyemi was an impostor who allegedly forged documents and impersonated government officials. It has also defended the Chief of Staff, who denied knowledge of the PFIPC and reported the matter to security agencies.
Adeyemi, however, has made allegations against senior government officials, claims that have been denied by those accused.
The controversy has triggered calls from opposition politicians, civil society organisations and other stakeholders for an independent investigation to establish how the alleged fictitious agency operated within government structures and whether any public officials facilitated or failed to detect its activities.
The Federal Government has meanwhile initiated investigations into the matter, while the alleged criminal case against Adeyemi continues to generate public interest.
The unfolding scandal has consequently raised wider questions about the effectiveness of Nigeria’s public financial management systems, administrative controls and oversight mechanisms, particularly how an organisation now described by the government as fictitious was able to gain recognition within official channels.
