Falana to FG: Come out clearly on PFIPC scandal, Nigerians deserve truth

Michael Olumide

Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, has called on the Federal Government to provide a comprehensive and transparent account of the controversy surrounding the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), insisting that the Presidency’s explanation has failed to answer critical questions raised by Nigerians.

Speaking during an exclusive interview on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, Ogun State, on Friday, Falana said the government owes Nigerians a more detailed explanation, stressing that the issues surrounding the alleged council cannot be dismissed with a brief official statement.

According to him, the controversy has exposed serious concerns about the country’s governance and institutional integrity.

“Unfortunately, I think there is more to this matter than meets the eye. Nigerians have not been given the full facts. I’ve read Mr. Bayo Onanuga speaking for the Presidency. To say it very mildly, the country has been exposed to unprecedented ridicule. The government must appreciate that they are dealing with civilised people, so the government must come out more clearly on this matter,” Falana said.

The senior advocate questioned how an agency allegedly unknown to law could have become embedded within government structures if it truly did not exist.

He asked how the purported council reportedly found its way into the 2026 Appropriation Act, secured office accommodation at the Federal Secretariat, opened accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), and allegedly had about 300 civil servants deployed to it despite lacking any known legal backing.

“How did an agency that is not created by law find its way into the Appropriation Act of Nigeria? How did that body get an office in the Federal Secretariat? How did that body successfully open accounts in the Central Bank of Nigeria? How did the Head of Service post about 300 staff to that office?” he queried.

Falana argued that the matter extends far beyond the criminal prosecution of the alleged promoter of the council, insisting that several government institutions involved in budgeting, administration and financial management owe Nigerians explanations.

He maintained that the National Assembly also has questions to answer over the alleged inclusion of the council in the national budget.

“You cannot have an agency that is not created by law in the budget of a country. You cannot put an agency that is unknown to law in the Appropriation Act. The National Assembly members will have to explain who authorised them to insert the body into the budget,” he stated.

Falana further noted that under Section 81 of the Constitution, appropriation bills originate from the Executive before transmission to the National Assembly, making it imperative for the Federal Government to explain how the alleged agency appeared in the approved budget.

Describing the Presidency’s official response as inadequate, he said the statement left “gaping holes” that could only be addressed through a thorough and transparent investigation.

“If this is a conman that can con the Presidency into issuing a letter of appointment, con the Central Bank into opening accounts, con the National Assembly into inserting the agency into the budget, I think the government is kidding,” he remarked.

The human rights lawyer also called for an independent investigation into the alleged role of the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, urging him to temporarily step aside to ensure a credible and transparent inquiry.

“The government has a duty to ask Mr. Gbajabiamila to step aside to allow for a full investigation in the interest of the country and even in his own interest,” he said.

While supporting the ongoing criminal trial of the alleged promoter of the council, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, Falana maintained that the court proceedings alone would not answer the broader institutional questions surrounding the alleged agency.

“The law must be allowed to take its course. But there are issues that are not going to come up in court. The court is not going to tell us who opened an account in the Central Bank. The court is not going to tell us who inserted the agency into the budget or why it was signed by the President,” he noted.

He therefore urged the Federal Government to revisit the matter by reopening its inquiry and involving all relevant agencies in what he described as a transparent and credible investigation.

“The government will have to revisit the matter, go back to the drawing board and issue another statement that will be acceptable to Nigerians by assuring them that there is no cover-up in this matter,” he said.

Falana stressed that restoring public confidence would require openness, accountability and full disclosure, warning that failure to comprehensively address the controversy could further erode trust in public institutions.

The controversy began on June 11, 2026, when the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, issued a disclaimer distancing the Presidency from the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) and its alleged Director-General, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew.

The Presidency insisted that no such council exists under the administration of President Bola Tinubu and described Adeyemi as an impostor who falsely claimed appointment by the Office of the Chief of Staff. It urged foreign missions, financial institutions and members of the public to disregard any representations made on behalf of the purported council.

Subsequently, the Presidency disclosed that the Chief of Staff had petitioned security agencies in October 2025 after receiving complaints that the council was operating from the Federal Secretariat, allegedly issuing forged appointment letters and presenting itself as a federal agency. Adeyemi was later arrested alongside two others and charged before the Federal High Court on allegations bordering on forgery, impersonation and obtaining by false pretence.

The matter escalated after documents from the 2026 Appropriation Act surfaced showing a budgetary allocation of approximately ₦1.3 billion for an entity listed as the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council.

The revelation triggered widespread public concern over how an agency the Presidency described as non-existent appeared in the approved federal budget with allocations for personnel, overhead and capital expenditure.

The controversy deepened when Adeyemi challenged the Presidency’s position, claiming the council operated from the Federal Secretariat, maintained accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria and had personnel deployed through the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.

He called for an independent investigation into the conflicting claims.
The issue has since attracted strong reactions from opposition politicians, civil society groups and governance advocates.

Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has given President Bola Tinubu a seven-day ultimatum to order an independent investigation into the scandal, arguing that the alleged budgetary allocation raises serious questions about the integrity of Nigeria’s budget process and the roles of the National Assembly, the Central Bank and other government institutions.

Similarly, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) has demanded the suspension of the Chief of Staff to the President pending an independent investigation.

The controversy continues to dominate public discourse, with many Nigerians questioning how an agency described by the Presidency as fictitious could allegedly operate from the Federal Secretariat, appear in the federal budget, maintain bank accounts and receive personnel postings without official approval.

Even as the criminal proceedings continue, observers insist that only a comprehensive investigation involving all relevant government institutions can resolve the lingering questions and restore public confidence in the nation’s public administration.