The controversy surrounding the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has taken a fresh turn, with the Buhari Media Organisation (BMO) disputing claims that the controversial body originated from the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
The development follows a statement by the Budget Office of the Federation, which recently told the House of Representatives that the institutional roots of the PFIPC could be traced to the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC), inaugurated by Buhari in October 2019.
The Budget Office, however, clarified that it did not create the council, assign its administrative code or approve its establishment, but merely acted on official instruments presented to it by relevant government institutions when preparing the 2026 budget.
ALSO READ PFIPC: Fake agency originated during Buhari administration – Budget Office
According to the Director-General of the Budget Office, Tanimu Yakubu, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation had assigned an administrative code to the PFIPC, while the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation had approved an establishment and recruitment waiver.
He said these instruments formed the basis upon which the Budget Office assessed the council’s potential fiscal implications.
But the BMO has rejected the narrative that the Buhari administration created the PFIPC, describing the claim as misleading.
The organisation argued that the existence of the Presidential Economic Advisory Council under Buhari should not be conflated with the creation or establishment of the PFIPC under the current administration.
The controversy centres on how the PFIPC found its way into the 2026 Appropriation Act and attracted a personnel allocation of more than ₦802 million, despite later being described by the Presidency as a non-existent or fake government agency.
The Budget Office said the council initially submitted a personnel estimate of about ₦3.85 billion for the 2026 fiscal year, but that the figure was independently reviewed and reduced to ₦802.98 million based on the authorised establishment, recruitment waiver, applicable public-service salary structure and existing costing procedures.
It further maintained that the approved provision was never released to the council.
Yakubu explained that the PFIPC could not access the personnel allocation because it did not obtain the required Financial Clearance, adding that the conditions for lawful recruitment and payroll enrolment had not been fulfilled.
He said no recruitment was carried out, no employees were enrolled on the Federal Government payroll, and no salaries were paid from the personnel provision.
The Budget Office consequently maintained that no public funds were released to the PFIPC and that there was therefore no personnel expenditure to recover.
The issue became a subject of public controversy after the Presidency declared the PFIPC fake and ordered investigations into how the organisation came to be recognised in official government processes and included in the 2026 budget.
The controversy has also triggered investigations and competing allegations involving individuals linked to the council and senior government officials.
The Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, has denied allegations made against him by the purported PFIPC Director-General, Prince Adeyemi Adeniyi, and has reportedly taken legal action over the claims.
The Central Bank of Nigeria has also confirmed that two domiciliary accounts associated with the PFIPC were opened on the directive of the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation. The apex bank, however, said the accounts, denominated in US dollars and British pounds sterling, were neither funded nor operated.
The latest disagreement between the BMO and the Budget Office adds another layer to the PFIPC controversy, which is now centred not only on the agency’s legitimacy but also on when and how it was established, which government institutions recognised it, and how it became listed in the federal budget.
While the Budget Office has linked the council’s institutional lineage to structures dating back to the Buhari administration, the BMO has challenged the interpretation, insisting that the former administration should not be held responsible for the creation of the PFIPC.
The conflicting accounts are likely to remain part of ongoing investigations aimed at determining the circumstances surrounding the council’s emergence, its inclusion in the 2026 budget and the roles played by government officials and institutions in the process.
