The self-styled Director-General of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), Adeniyi Adeyemi, has rejected allegations that he single-handedly established the disputed agency.
CityNews reports that Adeyemi, who is currently in police custody, claimed that several ministries, departments and agencies of the Federal Government processed documents, assigned personnel or officially interacted with the council over an extended period.
He made the claims in a statement issued on Sunday by his legal defence team and signed by Festus Akhigbe.
The lawyers also requested that Adeyemi be allowed to appear before the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the establishment and activities of the council.
The committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, had commenced an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the creation and operation of the PFIPC.
Adeyemi’s legal team argued that any final report produced by the committee without hearing directly from their client would be incomplete and contrary to his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
The statement read, “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, audi alteram partem.”
The lawyers maintained that Adeyemi should be given an opportunity to explain his role in the council and respond to the allegations made against him.
They rejected attempts to present him as “an isolated, mastermind impostor” who allegedly fabricated a government institution without the involvement of public officials or agencies.
Defence Names Alleged Government Involvement
According to the statement, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF) received documents connected to the council and facilitated the allocation of office space within the Federal Secretariat.
The defence team also claimed that the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) acted on official documents connected to the council.
The statement added, “We, the legal defence team of Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, issue this public statement to set the record straight following recent developments, our client’s current police detention, and the ongoing legislative hearings.
“The Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and Central Bank of Nigeria acted on official documentation to issue administrative budget codes, grant self-accounting status, post federal civil service staff to the council, and officially open operational accounts.”
The lawyers further alleged that the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation approved the council’s organisational structure and granted recruitment waivers that enabled it to engage 314 personnel.
They also claimed that heads of security agencies attended programmes organised by the council.
According to the statement, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission allocated a property to the organisation, requested a processing fee and presented a recognition plaque to its leadership.
Adeyemi’s legal team argued that the alleged involvement of numerous government institutions made it unreasonable to hold their client solely responsible for the council’s activities.
The statement asked, “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, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, be held uniquely responsible for failing to detect what the entire apparatus of the state validated?
“It is an administrative impossibility for an unassisted individual to mislead every arm of the Federal Government simultaneously without official, high-level institutional sanction.”
The defence maintained that the controversy should not be treated as the action of one individual without examining the processes and approvals allegedly provided by government institutions.
Lawyers Allege Scapegoating
The legal team alleged that Adeyemi was being made a scapegoat to conceal administrative failures and procedural lapses within the government.
It called for the investigation to cover all ministries, departments and agencies that allegedly processed documents or interacted with the council.
The lawyers also demanded the inclusion of civil society organisations, legal practitioners and independent observers in a broader investigation into the controversy.
The statement added, “While we note the ongoing proceedings by the House of Representatives ad hoc committee and investigating bodies, justice cannot be served by prosecuting the mouthpiece while ignoring the state machinery that built, budgeted, and bureaucratically birthed the entity.
“We reiterate our call for a truly comprehensive, multi-stakeholder panel that includes civil society, legal experts, and independent observers to audit the complete paper trail across all involved ministries, departments, and agencies.”
