Lawyers representing Adeniyi Adeyemi, the man accused of establishing and operating the purported Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, have rejected the portrayal of the PFIPC controversy as the work of one individual.
Adeyemi’s legal team argued that several federal institutions interacted with, processed documents relating to, funded or otherwise recognised the purported council over an extended period.
The lawyers made the claims in a statement signed by his legal team on Sunday, questioning why criminal proceedings have focused on Adeyemi while the roles of government institutions that allegedly interacted with the PFIPC remain under scrutiny.
The PFIPC controversy centres on an organisation the Federal Government says was never lawfully created but which nevertheless operated from the Federal Secretariat, maintained official bank accounts and secured government-related approvals and budgetary allocations.
Adeyemi is facing criminal proceedings after police accused him and two others of offences including forgery, impersonation and obtaining by false pretence.
His lawyers, however, argue that the alleged activities could not have been carried out solely by their client without interaction with officials and institutions within government.
Lawyers point to federal agencies
Adeyemi’s legal team specifically cited the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation and the Budget Office.
According to the lawyers, these institutions took various administrative actions connected to the purported council.
They alleged that the Office of the SGF acknowledged documentation and facilitated office accommodation for the PFIPC within the Federal Secretariat Complex.
The legal team further alleged that the Accountant-General’s Office and CBN acted on documentation connected to the council, including administrative budget codes, self-accounting status, staffing and operational bank accounts.
The lawyers also alleged that the Office of the Head of the Civil Service approved an establishment structure and recruitment waivers that facilitated the employment of 314 personnel.
They further pointed to the Budget Office and National Assembly’s role in processing documentation that resulted in a reported N1.302 billion allocation for PFIPC in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
These claims remain allegations by Adeyemi’s lawyers and have not established criminal responsibility on the part of the institutions or officials named.
Federal Government maintains PFIPC was unlawful
The Federal Government has maintained that the PFIPC was never legally established as a federal agency.
The controversy dates back to October 2025, when President Tinubu’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, petitioned security agencies over the alleged establishment and operation of the purported council.
Police subsequently filed eight charges against Adeyemi and two others, alleging forgery, impersonation and obtaining by false pretence.
Adeyemi has denied the allegations.
The case has also attracted the attention of the House of Representatives, which opened a separate investigation into how the purported council secured official recognition, office accommodation and budgetary allocations despite questions over its legal status.
At a July 27 hearing, lawmakers said they had uncovered 29 documents they believed were forged in connection with the council’s operations and directed the Inspector-General of Police to produce Adeyemi before the committee.
Adeyemi was subsequently arrested after a Federal High Court in Abuja issued a bench warrant following his failure to appear for arraignment. He remains in police custody pending further proceedings scheduled for September 30.
What remains unclear
The PFIPC controversy has raised questions about how an organisation that the Federal Government says was not lawfully established could operate within government facilities, maintain official accounts, receive budgetary allocations and interact with several public institutions.
While Adeyemi’s lawyers insist that the matter cannot be reduced to the actions of one individual, the allegations against their client remain before the court.
The House of Representatives’ investigation and the ongoing criminal proceedings could provide further answers about how the purported council operated and whether officials or institutions beyond those already named played any role in its emergence and activities.
Until those investigations and proceedings are concluded, claims concerning the responsibility of specific government officials or institutions remain subject to verification and due process.