PFIPC Budget Mystery Deepens: Adeyemi Names Officials, Denies Meeting Gbajabiamila as Reps Launch Probe…Says Agency Appeared in 2026 Budget After…

LAGOS — Fresh revelations have emerged in the unfolding controversy surrounding the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), as self-styled Director-General of the body, Prince Adeniyi Matthew Adeyemi, disclosed how the council allegedly found its way into the 2026 Federal Government budget despite his arrest before the appropriation process was concluded.
In a recorded interview with social media influencer Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan, released shortly after his arrest, Adeyemi claimed he personally lobbied officials in the Budget Office for the agency’s inclusion but expressed shock when he later discovered it had eventually appeared in the 2026 budget.
The disclosure came as the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee investigating the PFIPC saga commenced a public hearing into the council’s legal status, funding and budgetary inclusion, with both the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (OHCSF) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) distancing themselves from its establishment and operations.
Adeyemi insisted that the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, played no role in securing the council’s N1.3 billion allocation, stressing that he had never met the former Speaker physically before or after the alleged appointment process.
According to him, his first attempt to secure budgetary backing for the council was in December 2024, when he approached the Budget Office seeking inclusion in the 2025 Appropriation Bill. He claimed officials informed him that the budget process had already closed and advised him to pursue inclusion in the 2026 fiscal plan instead.
He further alleged that a female official facilitated his access to top Budget Office authorities and that discussions continued until his legal troubles interrupted the process.
Adeyemi maintained that no cash changed hands during the engagements, admitting only that he promised possible employment opportunities to some officials if the agency eventually became operational.
The embattled promoter also addressed allegations that he paid $400 million through an associate, Dolapo Tanimola, to facilitate his appointment, claiming the transaction was handled entirely by the intermediary. However, he reiterated that he never had direct contact with Gbajabiamila.
Meanwhile, the House Committee’s investigation gathered momentum as the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs. Didi Esther Walson-Jack, informed lawmakers that her office had no constitutional authority to create government agencies.
She disclosed that PFIPC sought approval for its organisational structure in August 2025 but failed to provide the necessary documentation, leading to the rejection of the request. The office later discovered irregularities in documents presented by the council as its enabling law.
Walson-Jack also denied reports that her office deployed civil servants to the council or allocated office accommodation to it.
Similarly, the Central Bank of Nigeria told lawmakers that it only opened two domiciliary accounts linked to the council after receiving a formal directive from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation in July 2025.
Represented by Director Hamisu Abdullahi, the apex bank revealed that the accounts remained inactive, with no deposits, withdrawals or transactions recorded since their creation.
Following the testimonies, the committee directed the CBN to provide complete records relating to the PFIPC and any associated accounts, while continuing efforts to uncover how the controversial body operated and eventually secured a place in the federal budget.
Adding another twist to the saga, Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, on Monday appeared before the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) over the PFIPC controversy.
His lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, confirmed that Gbajabiamila honoured the commission’s invitation, answered questions from investigators and subsequently returned to his official duties.
The House Committee is expected to determine whether PFIPC had any legal basis for existence, how it was incorporated into the federal budget framework and whether due constitutional and administrative procedures were followed.