By Peace Udugba
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), saying the Presidency’s explanation has failed to address critical questions raised by Nigerians.
Falana made the call on Friday during an interview on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, Ogun State.
According to him, the government owes Nigerians a more detailed explanation, stressing that the issues surrounding the alleged existence and operations of the council cannot be dismissed with a brief official statement.
“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,” he said.
Falana questioned how an agency allegedly not established by law could have been included in the nation’s governance structure, describing the circumstances as a serious threat to institutional integrity.
He queried how the alleged council, reportedly promoted by Adeniyi Adeyemi, found its way into the 2026 Appropriation Act, secured office space 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 legal foundation.
“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 asked.
The senior lawyer argued that the matter extends beyond the individual facing prosecution, saying several government institutions involved in budgeting, administration and financial management must account for their roles.
He also maintained that the National Assembly 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. Members of the National Assembly will have to explain who authorised the insertion of the body into the budget,” he said.
Citing Section 81 of the Constitution, Falana noted that appropriation bills originate from the Executive before being transmitted to the legislature, making it necessary for the Federal Government to explain how the alleged agency appeared in the budget.
He described the Presidency’s official response as inadequate, insisting that it left “gaping holes” requiring a thorough investigation.
“If this is a conman that can con the Presidency into issuing a letter of appointment, con the Central Bank into opening accounts, and con the National Assembly into inserting the agency into the budget, I think the government is kidding,” he said.
Falana further called for an independent investigation into the alleged role of the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, urging him to step aside temporarily to ensure a credible probe.
“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 stated.
While supporting the ongoing prosecution of the alleged promoter of the council, Falana argued that the courts would not resolve the broader institutional questions surrounding the agency’s alleged recognition and operations.
“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 said.
He urged the Federal Government to reopen its inquiry and involve all relevant agencies and officials in what he described as a transparent 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 added.
Falana warned that public confidence in government institutions would continue to erode unless the controversy is addressed with openness, accountability and transparency.
Background
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 maintained that no such council exists under the administration of President Bola Tinubu and described Adeyemi as an impostor allegedly using forged appointment letters to present himself as the head of a federal agency.
The matter, however, took a new turn after documents from the 2026 Appropriation Act surfaced, showing a budgetary allocation of about ₦1.3 billion to an entity listed as the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council.
The development triggered widespread public concern over how an agency described by the Presidency as non-existent appeared in the approved federal budget with allocations for personnel, overhead and capital expenditure.
Adeyemi has since denied the allegations against him, insisting that the council operated from the Federal Secretariat, maintained accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria and had personnel posted through the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.
The controversy has continued to attract reactions from opposition parties, civil society organisations and governance advocates, with many calling for an independent investigation into the alleged agency’s operations and the circumstances surrounding its inclusion in the 2026 federal budget.
