THE Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has told the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the legal basis, operations and budgetary inclusion of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) that it received authorisation from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) to open two domiciliary accounts for the council.
News Point Nigeria reports that the revelation came as the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) on Monday questioned the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, over allegations levelled against him by the purported Director-General of the council, Prince Adeyemi Adeniyi.
Adeniyi had alleged that he paid N400 million to Gbajabiamila through the late Babatunde Dolapo Tanimola to secure the appointment. He also claimed that the Chief of Staff demanded 48 per cent of the agency’s proposed N27.3 billion take-off grant.
Gbajabiamila has consistently denied the allegations and subsequently instituted a N15 billion defamation suit against Adeniyi.
The controversy surrounding the PFIPC intensified after more than N1.3 billion was allocated to the council in the approved 2026 budget, despite questions over its legal status and existence.
Investigations further revealed that Adeniyi allegedly secured approvals for the employment of 300 staff members, obtained office space within the Federal Secretariat in Abuja and opened accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria.
However, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation had insisted that the disputed council maintained no account with the apex bank, contradicting earlier claims that Adeniyi used forged documents to fraudulently obtain banking facilities.
Appearing before the probe panel shortly after its inauguration at the National Assembly on Monday, Hamisu Abdullahi, a director representing the CBN Governor, disclosed that the apex bank acted on an official mandate from the OAGF to open two domiciliary accounts for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.
According to him, the accounts—one in United States dollars and the other in Pound Sterling—were opened on July 30, 2025.
He explained that the accounts had remained inactive because the council failed to provide authorised signatories required for their operation.
“The process for opening the account requires a mandate from the office of the Accountant-General of the Federation. So once we receive that mandate, we perform all the necessary verification to confirm that this mandate is actually coming from the Office of the Accountant-General,” Abdullahi said.
“On the 30th of July 2025, we received a mandate dated July 29, 2025, from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation to the Central Bank of Nigeria to open two domiciliary accounts for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.
“Based on that mandate, we carried out the normal verification procedures and processed the account opening. Two accounts were opened: a dollar account and a pound sterling account.
“Those two accounts remain inactive with zero balance and have never been operated.”
Abdullahi further told lawmakers that there had been no foreign exchange allocations, remittances, inflows or outflows linked to the accounts.
“There have been no foreign exchange allocations, no remittances, no inflows and no outflows. The accounts have maintained zero balance from inception to date,” he said.
He added that the CBN does not deal directly with Ministries, Departments and Agencies regarding account openings, closures or changes except through the Office of the Accountant-General.
“As a banker to the Federal Government, the Central Bank has responsibility for opening all accounts for Ministries, Departments and Agencies, with the exception of those exempted from the Treasury Single Account,” he stated.
Abdullahi also disclosed that the apex bank had no direct correspondence with the council concerning the operation of the accounts.
Meanwhile, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs Didi Esther Walson-Jack, informed the committee that her office has no constitutional responsibility for establishing government agencies.
She explained that although her office approves the administrative structures of federal agencies, the establishment of such agencies falls outside its mandate.
“The approval and establishment of agencies is not within the purview of the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation. However, the OHCSF is responsible for approving the administrative structure of federal government agencies,” she said.
Walson-Jack revealed that the council had submitted a request for approval of its organisational structure on August 6, 2025, but the request was rejected because the necessary documents were not provided.
She, however, stated that during the 2025 annual manpower budget defence exercise, officials of the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council sought approval for an authorised establishment and recruitment waiver.
According to her, the council informed the office that 14 officers, including the Director-General and Chief Executive Officer, were already working with the body and requested approval to commence full operations.
She said the request was processed alongside those of 87 other MDAs and was eventually approved as part of the fourth batch of manpower approvals.
The approval covered 314 positions, comprising 14 existing officers and 300 new positions.
However, the Head of Service said irregularities were later discovered in documents submitted by the council as its enabling legal instrument.
“It was observed that the document presented by the council as its enabling law or legal instrument did not really carry the requisite features,” she told lawmakers.
She also denied claims that her office deployed staff to the council or allocated office accommodation to it.
“We wish to state that there was no deployment of staff by the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation to the council,” she said.
The House panel subsequently directed the CBN to provide comprehensive records of all financial transactions linked to the council.
Earlier, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Abbas Tajudeen, inaugurated the ad hoc committee investigating the legal basis, operations and budgetary inclusion of the PFIPC, stressing that the exercise was aimed at establishing facts rather than validating speculation.
Speaking during the inauguration at the National Assembly, Abbas said the committee would determine whether the council was lawfully established and whether due process was followed in its inclusion in the federal budget framework.
The committee, chaired by Rep. Yusuf Adamu Gagdi, was constituted following widespread concerns over the council’s legal status, institutional mandate and relationship with existing government agencies.
Abbas said the investigation underscored the House’s commitment to transparency, accountability and effective parliamentary oversight.
“Today, we convene to exercise our constitutional oversight by formally inaugurating the Ad Hoc Committee to probe the existence and operations of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council and its placement within the federal budget framework,” he said.
The Speaker noted that the House was responding to growing public interest in the council, adding that questions had been raised over its legal foundation, operational framework, funding and appearance in the federal budget despite uncertainty surrounding its establishment.
“These questions deserve clear, factual and authoritative answers. The House of Representatives has therefore not constituted this committee to validate speculation or amplify controversy. Neither is this a political exercise. Our objective is simply to establish the facts,” Abbas stated.
He added that parliamentary investigations were intended to ensure that “facts prevail over rumours, evidence over conjecture and accountability over opacity.”
Abbas outlined the committee’s terms of reference, directing members to determine the legal basis for the establishment and operation of the council, investigate the processes that led to its creation and ascertain whether they complied with the Constitution and extant laws.
He said the committee would also examine the council’s mandate, governance structure, funding sources, operational activities and relationship with statutory agencies responsible for investment promotion, economic planning and public finance.
The panel is equally expected to investigate how the council found its way into the federal budget framework, identify the approvals and budgetary processes involved and determine whether due process was followed.
The Speaker further tasked the committee with examining possible duplication of functions with existing government institutions and assessing the implications for public administration, fiscal responsibility and institutional efficiency.
He urged the panel to receive memoranda from MDAs, constitutional bodies, experts, civil society organisations and members of the public before making recommendations on legislative or administrative reforms required to strengthen transparency and accountability.
“This inquiry is not about personalities. It is about institutions and the integrity of public administration. Every public institution must derive its authority from law and exercise its responsibilities within the limits prescribed by law,” he said.
Abbas also called on all public officials and stakeholders invited by the committee to cooperate fully by providing truthful and complete information.
“This House expects the truth, not rehearsed scripts or defensive posturing. Nigerians deserve candour. They deserve explanations that withstand scrutiny. They deserve to know, with absolute certainty, that their public institutions operate within the law,” he added.
In his remarks, the committee chairman, Gagdi, assured Nigerians that the panel would conduct its assignment with fairness, professionalism and impartiality.
“Our mandate is to objectively examine the circumstances surrounding the alleged establishment and operations of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, determine whether due constitutional and statutory processes were followed, engage all relevant stakeholders, carefully review the available evidence and submit appropriate findings and recommendations to the House,” Gagdi said.
He assured that every individual and institution connected with the investigation would be given a fair hearing, adding that the proceedings would be guided by the Constitution, due process and the principles of natural justice.
Gagdi expressed confidence that the committee’s work would assist lawmakers in taking informed decisions while strengthening democratic institutions and promoting the rule of law.
The committee is expected to submit its report to the House after concluding its investigation.
Meanwhile, the panel has invited key government officials and heads of strategic agencies to appear before it as part of the investigation. Those invited include the Ministers of Budget and Economic Planning, Finance, Industry, Trade and Investment, Justice and Foreign Affairs.
Others expected to appear are the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Auditor-General for the Federation, the Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, the Chairman of the Fiscal Responsibility Commission, the Chairmen of the ICPC and the EFCC, the Director-General of the DSS and the Inspector-General of Police.
In a related development, the ICPC questioned Gbajabiamila over his alleged link to the disputed council following a directive by President Bola Tinubu that the commission conclude its probe within 30 days.
Confirming the development on Monday, Gbajabiamila’s lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, said his client honoured the commission’s invitation.
“In full cooperation with the ICPC acting as directed by the President of Nigeria, I hereby confirm that my client, Femi Gbajabiamila, Chief of Staff to the President of Nigeria, responded to the invitation of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission and appeared at about 15:00hrs on Monday, July 20, 2026, as part of the ongoing investigation into the activities of the ‘PFIPC’ fake agency, among others,” Ogunye said.
“My client gave his testimony, responded to questions accordingly, and has returned to his duty post,” he added.
Since its inauguration, the 10th House of Representatives has launched a series of high-profile investigations into alleged corruption, financial mismanagement, procurement breaches and administrative infractions.
Among such probes was the July 3, 2024 investigation into the alleged diversion of N1.12 trillion disbursed under the Central Bank of Nigeria’s Anchor Borrowers Programme.
This was followed on July 10, 2024, by an investigation into alleged financial irregularities in the Federal Ministry of Women Affairs, including the non-payment of N1.5 billion owed to contractors despite the release of funds.
On July 18, 2024, lawmakers ordered a probe into allegations that international oil companies were frustrating the operations of the Dangote Refinery through the refusal to supply crude oil.
Earlier, on June 6, 2024, the House resolved to investigate alleged fraudulent land allocations and issuance of land titles in the Federal Capital Territory, while in May 2024 it opened an inquiry into the dismissal of more than 600 CBN staff and constituted an ad hoc committee to examine the procurement process for the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway project.
Other investigations included the March 2024 probe into the sharp increase in cement prices, the February 3, 2024 inquiry into certificate racketeering involving universities and government officials, and earlier probes into the utilisation of N62 billion in HIV/AIDS intervention funds and alleged revenue leakages through the Remita payment platform.
The House also ordered investigations into exorbitant international airfares, the alleged indiscriminate issuance of Certificates of No Objection by the Bureau of Public Procurement and widespread job racketeering involving the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System.
Although many of these investigations were launched to strengthen accountability, curb corruption and ensure prudent management of public resources, several have either stalled or remained inconclusive.
Critics argue that the legislature’s inability to prosecute offenders directly, coupled with weak implementation of its resolutions, has continued to limit the impact of many of the House’s high-profile probes.