Written By Tobore Jerome
The legal status of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has come under increasing public scrutiny amid allegations that the organization is not a duly established agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria.
The PFIPC is said to be headed by one Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, as Director General of the agency, whom the Presidential spokeman, Bayo Onanuga, has described as an impostor.
Onanuga in a statement on Wednesday dismissed renewed claims by Adeyemi Adeniyi Matthew that he was appointed to head a presidential agency, insisting he is an impostor who allegedly forged official documents to present himself as Director-General of a non-existent Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, also described as the Presidential Economic Advisory Council.
The Federal Government has since filed an 8 count charge against Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, before a Federal High Court. However, Adeniyi Adeyemi, has denied any wrongdoing, alleging that he got his appointment letter from the Chief of Staff to the President, Mr Femi Gbajabiamila, and he was assigned an office at the federal secretariat Abuja.
The controversy has sparked widespread debate, with stakeholders calling on the Federal Government to clarify the Council’s status and, where necessary, constitute an independent panel to investigate its activities.
Investigations into publicly available government records indicate that the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council is not listed among the statutory Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) of the Federal Government. Likewise, there is no publicly available Act of the National Assembly or Executive Order establishing the Council as a federal agency.
Under Nigerian constitution (section 4), federal government agencies are typically created through legislation enacted by the National Assembly and assented to by the President or through other legally recognized executive instruments where applicable. Such agencies are assigned defined statutory mandates and operate under the supervision of relevant government authorities.
The absence of publicly available documentation establishing PFIPC has fueled allegations by critics that the Council is a “fake agency” allegedly operating without legal backing.
Those raising concerns argue that the Council’s name and activities may give the impression that it is an official federal institution, despite the lack of publicly verifiable evidence confirming its establishment by the Federal Government.
The allegations have prompted renewed calls for the Federal Government to conduct a thorough investigation into the Council’s legal status, operational mandate, funding, and the authority under which it carries out its activities.
One of such persons that have called for independent investigation into the so called fake presidential agency is Human rights lawyer, Femi Falana.
Falana, in an interview with The PUNCH on Wednesday night, argued that the executive branch was constitutionally incapable of exonerating any of the parties involved and that the full weight of anti-corruption machinery must be allowed to function independently.
He said, “The Presidency is not in a position to clear anybody. It is the duty of the police and anti-graft agencies to investigate cases of official corruption.
“The Presidency can only refer Femi Gbajabiamila, as well as the other individual, to the ICPC because allegations of fraud and corruption have been raised.”
The senior advocate questioned the financial provisions linked to the purported agency, saying, “The government will have to explain to Nigerians how a whopping sum of N24bn was budgeted for an unknown agency, as well as how that agency had accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria.”
He called for an explanation of how a fictitious body allegedly secured a CBN account and attracted a budget line.
Observers say an independent investigative panel would help determine whether PFIPC was lawfully established, whether it has the legal authority to represent the Federal Government in any capacity, and whether its operations comply with existing laws governing public institutions.
Legal analysts note that only the appropriate government authorities can conclusively determine the Council’s status through an official investigation and the examination of relevant legal documents.
The controversy has underscored the importance of transparency in the establishment and operation of public institutions, particularly those that bear names suggesting affiliation with the Presidency or the Federal Government. Analysts say a prompt clarification by the appropriate authorities would help address public concerns, protect investors, and preserve confidence in Nigeria’s public institutions.
About The Author
