Residents of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, have called for a thorough and independent investigation into the controversy surrounding the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, PFIPC, following revelations that the Presidency has disowned the agency despite its N1.3 billion allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
Controversy over the fake agency has triggered widespread public concern over transparency, accountability and the integrity of Nigeria’s budget process, with stakeholders demanding that those responsible be identified and prosecuted if found culpable.
Speaking with our correspondent in Abuja, resident Brume Tadafe described the development as another reflection of the country’s governance challenges, expressing skepticism about the government’s willingness to investigate the matter.
“I am not surprised by the revelations because this is Nigeria. If government officials were involved, it would be difficult for the same government to conduct a credible investigation,” he said.
According to Tadafe, the media should continue exposing facts surrounding the controversy, insisting that sustained public scrutiny remains the most effective means of ensuring accountability.
He also questioned how an agency allegedly unknown to the Presidency could have passed through multiple layers of government approval, including the Executive, the National Assembly and the budgeting process.
Another Abuja resident, Azuka Uhebor, said the allocation of about N1.3 billion to the agency and reports that relevant documents were approved by the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation suggested that influential officials might have been involved.
He called on the Federal Government to institute a comprehensive investigation into the matter.
“The facts should be established and anyone found culpable should be prosecuted in accordance with the law. Nigerians deserve to know how this happened, especially at a time of severe economic hardship,” he said.
He further urged the government to recover any public funds that may have been wrongly appropriated and ensure that innocent employees associated with the agency are treated fairly pending the outcome of investigations.
Also reacting, a lecturer at Bingham University, Dr. Isaiah Aluya, argued that the National Assembly could not be absolved of responsibility, noting that the budgetary allocation must have undergone legislative scrutiny before approval.
“The National Assembly approved the budget, so it cannot claim ignorance. A comprehensive investigation should determine how the agency found its way into the appropriation process and whether due procedures were followed,” he said.
Meanwhile, a faction of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, led by Kabiru Turaki, SAN, has called for an independent forensic investigation into the alleged funding of what it described as a “fake” federal agency.
Specifically, the faction called for an investigation of the allegations of involvement of the Chief of Staff to President, Femi Gbajabiamila, in the saga.
A statement on Sunday by the spokesman of the faction, Ini Ememobong, said the controversy exposes what it described as incompetence, negligence and weak institutional safeguards within the Federal Government.
The opposition party said the allegations made by Prince Matthew Adeyemi and the Presidency’s response had raised serious concerns about governance and accountability under President Bola Tinubu.
The party alleged that the administration was being run “with alarming recklessness, where nepotism and cronyism have displaced merit, and impunity has become standard practice.”
According to the PDP faction, Prince Matthew Adeyemi had alleged that Gbajabiamila solicited and received financial inducement of N600 million to facilitate his appointment into the Presidential Economic Advisory Council, and later made additional financial demands.
The party noted that the presidential spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, in responding to the allegations, described Prince Adeyemi as an impostor who fraudulently gained access to government institutions, rather than directly addressing the bribery claims.
The PDP argued that the Presidency’s explanation raised even more troubling questions about security and administrative controls within the government.
“If the Presidency’s account is correct, that Prince Adeyemi is an impostor, then it means the Federal Government is so porous and vulnerable, an admission that the country has been brazenly defrauded because institutional gatekeepers entrusted with protecting our collective patrimony are either grossly incompetent or thoroughly distracted from the responsibilities of governance,” the statement said.
It added that if Prince Adeyemi’s allegations against the Chief of Staff were true, “then this is yet another act of shameless corruption added to a long and growing queue of unchallenged corrupt officials in this administration.”
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, SERAP, has asked the leadership of the National Assembly to disclose documents relating to the approval of over N1.3bn allocated to what the Presidency has described as a non-existent presidential council in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
In a Freedom of Information, FoI, request dated July 4, SERAP called on Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas to release certified copies of all records concerning the approval of N1,302,978,784 allocated to the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, PFIPC/Presidential Economic Advisory Council.
The organisation also urged both chambers to invoke their constitutional oversight powers under Sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution to investigate how the allocation was included in the 2026 budget and identify those responsible for any irregularities.
SERAP’s request follows the Presidency’s public statement that the PFIPC/Presidential Economic Advisory Council was never established by the Federal Government, despite receiving an allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
Signed by SERAP Deputy Director Kolawole Oluwadare, the FoI request said the conflicting accounts raised serious concerns about the integrity of Nigeria’s budget process, legislative oversight, public financial management and accountability.
A civil society organisation, BudgIT has urged the Federal Government to immediately launch an independent investigation into the controversial N1.30bn allocation to the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, PFIPC, also referred to as the Presidential Economic Advisory Council, PEAC, in the 2026 Appropriation Act, describing the incident as a serious threat to the credibility of Nigeria’s budget process.
The organisation said the controversy surrounding the agency, which has now been publicly disowned by the Presidency, raises fundamental questions about the integrity of Nigeria’s appropriation system and the effectiveness of institutional checks designed to safeguard public resources.
BudgIT said the allocation of over N1.3bn to an agency whose legal existence has been denied by the Presidency underscores systemic failures in the country’s public financial management architecture and demands urgent scrutiny.
BudgIT argued that the Presidency’s denial raises even more troubling questions that require immediate public clarification.
According to the organisation, if the agency was indeed fictitious, Nigerians deserve to know how it secured office accommodation within the Federal Secretariat, reportedly operated multiple accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, obtained a budgetary allocation exceeding N1.3bn in the 2026 Appropriation Act, navigated the various stages of the federal
budget process, and engaged with government institutions, diplomatic missions and development partners before its legitimacy was questioned.
BudgIT said its review of previous federal budgets revealed that neither the PFIPC nor the PEAC appeared as budgeted entities under the Presidency in the 2023, 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Acts.Executive Branch
“The sudden appearance of the agency in the 2026 budget raises legitimate concerns regarding the process through which it was introduced, reviewed and eventually approved,” the organisation stated.
