Fresh documents have raised questions over the Presidency’s insistence that the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council never existed, revealing that the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation acknowledged and acted on official correspondence submitted in the agency’s name months before it was publicly disowned.
Documents indicate that the SGF’s office processed a request from the PFIPC seeking office accommodation from recovered Federal Government properties managed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
The correspondence, dated November 21, 2024, was signed by the Permanent Secretary, General Services Office, Nnamdi Maurice Mbaeri, on behalf of the SGF and forwarded to the EFCC for necessary action.
Attached to the letter was an earlier request dated November 7, 2024, submitted by Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, who identified himself as Director-General of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.
Registry records show the SGF’s office received the request on November 12 before transmitting it to the anti-graft agency nine days later.
The forwarding letter identified the application under reference number SH/DG/PFIPC/RQ/107 and listed it among requests from government institutions seeking office accommodation from recovered federal assets.
In his letter, Adeyemi described PFIPC as a federal investment promotion body responsible for attracting foreign direct investment, coordinating activities among ministries, departments and agencies, and promoting Nigeria as a preferred investment destination.
He stated that the council functioned as a one-stop investment centre facilitating engagement between government institutions and private investors while serving as a repository for investment-related information.
The documents surfaced amid an ongoing criminal case against Adeyemi, who is accused of operating a fictitious government agency, forging presidential appointment documents and impersonating a public official.
Despite the emergence of the documents, the Presidency has maintained that PFIPC had no legal existence.
Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga recently described the council as fictitious and highlighted allegations contained in police investigations against Adeyemi.
Authorities allege that he forged an appointment letter purportedly issued by President Bola Tinubu and signed by Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila.
Investigators further claimed that Adeyemi operated multiple bank accounts linked to entities presented as government agencies and held official meetings, including engagements with foreign diplomats, under the PFIPC banner.
Court documents show that the Federal Government has listed Gbajabiamila and ten other individuals as witnesses in the criminal trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Adeyemi and two other suspects identified as Femi and Anu, who remain at large, are facing charges bordering on conspiracy, forgery, impersonation and related offences allegedly committed between 2024 and 2025.
Police investigators say the probe began after a petition from the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President over alleged forged appointment letters carrying official insignia, reference numbers and seals.
Investigators also alleged that Adeyemi sought diplomatic assistance from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to facilitate visas for individuals described as PFIPC staff members.
Journalists who visited the Federal Secretariat in Abuja reported finding no office bearing the council’s name, while staff members and security personnel said they were unaware of its existence.
Checks further indicated that PFIPC previously operated a website hosted under a federal government domain, although the portal has since become inaccessible.
The controversy has sparked calls for an independent investigation from opposition parties, civil society groups and legal practitioners.
Senior advocate Femi Falana has urged anti-corruption agencies to conduct a comprehensive inquiry, while political parties and advocacy groups have demanded greater transparency over alleged budgetary allocations, bank accounts and approvals linked to the council.
The Presidency insists that although systemic gaps may have enabled the scheme to operate for some time, it was government institutions themselves that eventually detected and exposed the alleged fraud.
