The self-acclaimed Director-General of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), Adeniyi Adeyemi, has denied allegations that he single-handedly established the disputed agency, insisting that several Federal Government institutions officially interacted with the council before the controversy erupted.
Glonat Newsonline reports that Adeyemi, who is currently in police custody, made the claims through a statement issued on Sunday by his legal team and signed by Festus Akhigbe.
His lawyers also called on the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the establishment and operations of the PFIPC to allow him to testify before concluding its probe.
The committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, is currently investigating the circumstances surrounding the creation and activities of the council.
Adeyemi’s legal team argued that excluding their client from the proceedings would violate his constitutional right to a fair hearing and undermine the credibility of the committee’s findings.
“We formally request that the panel issue the necessary administrative clearance to allow our client, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, to appear in person and testify.
“Any investigative outcome or final legislative report produced without affording our client a direct hearing would be fundamentally flawed, incomplete, and a breach of the constitutional right to a fair hearing,” the statement read.
The lawyers maintained that Adeyemi should be allowed to explain his involvement in the council and respond directly to allegations against him.
They also rejected attempts to portray him as the sole architect of the agency, describing such claims as misleading.
According to the defence, several government institutions allegedly processed official documents, assigned personnel and maintained formal interactions with the PFIPC over an extended period.
The legal team claimed that the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF) received documents relating to the council and facilitated the allocation of office space within the Federal Secretariat.
They further alleged that the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) processed official documentation that enabled the council to obtain administrative budget codes, self-accounting status and operational bank accounts.
The lawyers also claimed that the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation approved the council’s organisational structure and recruitment waivers, which allegedly led to the engagement of 314 personnel.
According to the statement, heads of security agencies attended events organised by the council, while the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) allegedly allocated a property to the organisation, requested processing fees and presented a recognition plaque to its leadership.
Adeyemi’s lawyers argued that the alleged involvement of multiple government agencies made it unreasonable to hold their client solely responsible for the existence of the PFIPC.
They questioned how one individual could allegedly deceive numerous federal institutions without official approval or institutional backing.
“If the SGF, the Accountant-General, the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Head of Service, the Budget Office, the EFCC, the National Assembly, and the heads of Nigeria’s primary security architecture all verified, processed, funded, and officially interacted with this agency over an extended period, how can a single citizen… be held uniquely responsible?” the statement queried.
The defence described it as “an administrative impossibility” for one individual to independently create and sustain such an organisation without the cooperation or approval of public institutions.
The legal team further alleged that Adeyemi was being used as a scapegoat to shield wider administrative failures within government.
They called for a broader investigation covering all ministries, departments and agencies that allegedly processed documents or interacted with the council.
The lawyers also urged the inclusion of civil society organisations, legal practitioners and independent observers in the investigation to ensure transparency and accountability.
According to them, the controversy should not be treated as the actions of a single individual without examining the roles allegedly played by government institutions throughout the council’s existence.
Post a Comment