The Director-General of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, Adeniyi Adeyemi, has insisted that his lawyers and members of the media must be present when he appears before the House of Representatives committee investigating the council.
According to The PUNCH, Adeyemi, who is currently in police custody, is expected to face the ad hoc committee after lawmakers postponed his interrogation following his refusal to answer questions without his legal representatives.
The committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, is investigating how the PFIPC allegedly secured an office at the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja and obtained more than N1.32tn in the 2026 budget despite questions over its legal status.
A source familiar with the committee’s proceedings said on Sunday that lawmakers had yet to settle on a venue for Adeyemi’s appearance.
Asked whether a location had been selected, the source simply said, “No decision yet.”
The uncertainty followed earlier hearings involving senior government officials, including the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack; Budget Office Director-General, Tanimu Yakubu; Central Bank of Nigeria Director of Banking Services, Hamisu Abdullahi; and representatives of the Inspector-General of Police.
Their testimonies reportedly raised questions about how Adeyemi allegedly gained access to government institutions and presented himself as the head of the PFIPC.
Adeyemi’s lawyer, Ademola Oyedokun, had previously objected to plans to question his client privately while he remained in police detention.
The lawyer argued that since allegations against Adeyemi had been made publicly, his client should equally be allowed to respond publicly.
“We have read that the committee intends to interview our client at an undisclosed date and place. We ask it, respectfully, to think again,” Oyedokun said.
He added that Adeyemi should be given the opportunity to respond in the same public setting where allegations against him had been aired.
The committee had earlier explained that questioning Adeyemi at an undisclosed location was intended to avoid interfering with investigations by the police, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission.
Gagdi said the lawmakers could not disregard an existing court order under which Adeyemi remained in police custody.
Meanwhile, the Coalition of United Political Parties has criticised the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission’s handling of the PFIPC investigation.
The coalition’s spokesperson, Agu Bryan, described the ICPC findings, which reportedly cleared the Presidency while indicting Adeyemi, as inadequate.
Bryan argued that the scale of the alleged activities could not reasonably have been carried out by one individual without assistance from people within government institutions.
“The ICPC probe of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council which exonerated the Presidency and indicted Adeniyi Adeyemi is nothing short of a charade,” he said.
He called for a wider investigation into the roles allegedly played by government institutions, including the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Central Bank and the Office of the Head of the Civil Service.
The CUPP spokesperson also questioned how an organisation whose legal existence was reportedly in doubt could have secured a budgetary allocation running into billions of naira.
He said the National Assembly and government agencies involved in the budget process should explain how the PFIPC entered the 2026 Appropriation Act.
“The National Assembly, particularly the House of Representatives, which appropriated funds to an agency that, according to the investigation, never existed as a creation of law, also owes Nigerians an explanation,” Bryan said.
The coalition further questioned how the council allegedly recruited hundreds of workers and gained access to official government processes despite the concerns surrounding its status.
Bryan said investigators should go beyond establishing whether documents were forged and determine how Adeyemi allegedly obtained recognition within government.
This followed reports that a signature attributed to the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, was allegedly forged.
“It is commendable that the House and the Police have established that the signature of the Chief of Staff to the President was allegedly forged. But that raises another critical question: how many other documents, official correspondences and signatures allegedly used by Adeyemi were also forged?” Bryan asked.
CUPP also urged that Adeyemi be allowed to defend himself before the House committee, saying his appearance could help investigators determine whether other individuals or institutions were involved.
The controversy centres on allegations of impersonation, forgery, financial impropriety and the unauthorised use of government facilities and official insignia.
The House investigation is expected to establish how the PFIPC came into existence, how it gained access to government structures, who recognised it and how funds were allegedly allocated to it.
Adeyemi’s eventual appearance before the committee is therefore expected to provide an opportunity for him to respond directly to the allegations and explain his role in the activities attributed to the controversial council.
