Reps Panel Uncovers 58 Bank Accounts Linked to Adeyemi’s PFICP

…Fails to Establish How ‘Fake Agency’ Got N1.3bn Allocation

The House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee probing the establishment and operations of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFICP) has uncovered 58 bank accounts and 12 illegal entities linked to its purported “Director-General,” Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi.

The committee said the discovery was made through an elaborate scheme involving forged State House correspondence, fictitious government officials and the unauthorised occupation of Federal Secretariat premises.

In its preliminary findings released on Wednesday, the committee said the purported organisation appeared to have deployed fictitious names, offices and official designations in a bid to obtain recognition as a legitimate Federal Government institution.

The preliminary report, signed by the chairman of the ad hoc committee, Rep. Yusuf Gagdi, however, did not establish how N1.3 billion was allocated to the PFICP in the 2026 Federal Budget or identify the individuals who facilitated the allocation.

At the centre of the controversy is a letter purportedly issued by the State House and signed by one Mr. Akambi Adewale, described as “Director, Administration and Support Services,” for the Permanent Secretary.

But evidence obtained from the State House, according to the committee, established that the office cited in the letter did not exist in the stated form.

The purported Directorate of Administration and Support Services was also said not to exist, while no State House officer known as Akambi Adewale served in that capacity.

The committee therefore concluded, preliminarily, that fictitious public officers and non-existent government directorates were deployed in a document “calculated to mislead an important financial institution of the Federal Government.”

It described the alleged creation of fictitious public officers and government directorates for the purpose of procuring governmental recognition as “a particularly audacious form of institutional impersonation.”

The committee also disclosed that more than 30 of the 58 accounts were reportedly operated in the names of about nine agencies, companies, foundations or related entities, while some entities appeared to have multiple accounts.

Other accounts, the panel said, were operated in personal or variant names. The committee, however, cautioned that it had not concluded that every identified account, entity or transaction was unlawful.

It said it was reconciling registration records, account mandates, beneficial ownership information, signatories and transaction histories to determine the true ownership, control and nature of the accounts.

The Reps panel described the occupation of accommodation space within the Federal Secretariat complex as unauthorised, saying it enhanced the organisation’s ability to portray itself to members of the public and other government institutions as a legitimate Federal Government agency.

It said it was investigating the identity and authority of the officers involved in the transfer or occupation of the premises.

The Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation also came under scrutiny after confirming that a response issued to the purported State House request tendered by Adeyemi was authentic, even though the originating request was allegedly forged.

The office, however, acknowledged that the response should not have been released to Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi or any other unauthorised person.

According to the committee, the response ought to have been transmitted through a properly authenticated official channel.

The panel described the incident as a serious administrative and security lapse and said it was investigating whether it resulted from negligence, failure to observe verification procedures, breach of correspondence rules, wilful disregard of due process or deliberate facilitation.

The Budget Office of the Federation is also being investigated over its interaction with the purported organisation.

The committee said preliminary evidence indicated that the Budget Office was presented with documents purporting to establish the organisation as a Federal Government institution.

It stressed that verifying the legal existence of an institution was a fundamental requirement before its recognition within the Federal Budget Framework.

The committee said it was reviewing correspondence, electronic records, approvals and other actions to establish whether administrative weakness, negligence, circumvention of procedure, unauthorised facilitation or active complicity was involved.

The panel also expressed concern over the failure or refusal of some officials in the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) to honour its invitations or fully respond to requests for information.

It said evidence suggested that a senior officer might have directed that invitations issued by the committee should not be honoured.

The affected officials, however, would be given a final opportunity to respond before the committee makes definitive findings and recommendations.

The committee further found that approximately 39 persons had been paraded or represented as employees of the purported organisation across junior, intermediate and senior cadres.

It said it was investigating their recruitment, appointment letters, identity cards, salaries and allowances, as well as allegations that money was collected from some persons as a condition for employment.

The panel said it would distinguish between individuals who were themselves deceived and those who knowingly participated in, facilitated or benefited from the activities under investigation.

The panel said preliminary evidence identified Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi as the principal person associated with the representation and operation of the purported organisation and a wider network of related entities.

It said the alleged forging or mutilation of documents purporting to emanate from the Presidency or the National Assembly was “particularly reprehensible.”

It stressed that its findings were preliminary and that persons implicated would be given a fair hearing before final conclusions and recommendations were reached.