Fake agency probe: Reps face pressure to extend investigation as final report looms

Fake agency probe: Reps face pressure to extend investigation as final report looms

The House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) is facing mounting pressure to broaden its inquiry as the panel prepares to conclude its assignment.

The 12-member committee, chaired by Plateau State lawmaker Yusuf Gagdi, is expected to finalise its investigation within the next few weeks and submit its report to the House for consideration in plenary.

However, concerns have continued to trail the conduct and scope of the investigation, with lawmakers, civil society organisations and public affairs analysts questioning the exclusion of some key individuals linked to the allegations.

A member of the House, who spoke on condition of anonymity, particularly faulted the decision to appoint Gagdi as chairman of the committee, noting that the lawmaker had earlier sponsored the motion that triggered the investigation.

The lawmaker argued that appointing the sponsor of the motion as chairman could raise questions about the neutrality of the investigation.

He also questioned why the committee had not invited the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, despite allegations linking him to the controversial activities under investigation.

The lawmaker said the committee should hear from all principal actors, stressing that the involvement of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) in the criminal aspect of the matter should not prevent the House panel from questioning individuals relevant to its legislative inquiry.

He also challenged the committee’s reported conclusion that signatures attributed to Gbajabiamila on documents submitted before it differed from the signature on the appointment letter issued to the alleged PFIPC Director-General, Adeyemi Adeniyi.

The lawmaker noted that some public officials use different signatures on official documents and argued that the issue required further verification rather than being treated as conclusive evidence.

He further accused the committee of conducting a one-sided investigation, alleging that Gagdi had, during one of the committee’s sittings, dominated proceedings and prevented a member from asking what he described as an important question.

The controversy has intensified as the committee approaches the conclusion of its assignment.

Speaking on the matter, a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress and former Secretary-General of the Arewa Consultative Forum, Anthony Sani, said Nigerians expected the investigation to be comprehensive and to cover all individuals mentioned in connection with the controversy.

Sani said the circumstances surrounding the reported death of Dolapo Tanimola, alleged to have acted as an intermediary in the controversial N400 million transaction, should form part of the committee’s inquiry.

He urged the panel to leave no avenue unexplored in its effort to establish the facts surrounding the controversy.

Similarly, the Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, Ibrahim Rafsanjani, said the PFIPC controversy raised fundamental questions about the integrity of public institutions, Nigeria’s budgeting system, security architecture and presidential bureaucracy.

Rafsanjani said his organisation was not satisfied with the depth, independence and comprehensiveness of the investigation conducted so far.

According to him, the inquiry should go beyond determining whether an appointment letter was forged or whether the disputed council had a legal basis.

He said the committee should establish how the organisation gained access and recognition within government institutions, identify those who facilitated its activities and determine whether public funds were released or expended in connection with its operations.

Rafsanjani also criticised the committee for failing to rigorously question police investigators about the circumstances surrounding Tanimola’s death.

He said the panel should demand details of the circumstances, location, date and cause of death, as well as the status of any autopsy, coroner’s inquiry or forensic examination.

He further called for investigations into the people who last contacted or met Tanimola and whether his death affected the recovery or preservation of evidence.

Tanimola was reportedly linked to allegations that N400 million was received as an intermediary payment purportedly intended for Gbajabiamila. He was later reported to have died in a fire incident at Kachi Hotel in Utako, Abuja, where the alleged transaction was said to have taken place.

Reports also indicated that the hotel was subsequently demolished by armed individuals, allegedly preventing investigators from retrieving Closed-Circuit Television footage that could have assisted the investigation.

Rafsanjani argued that a credible investigation could not ignore a death connected to a central allegation, warning that failure to examine the matter could undermine public confidence in the eventual findings.

He also called for the invitation of Gbajabiamila, stressing that an invitation to appear before the committee would not amount to a declaration of guilt but would give him an opportunity to clarify the allegations.

The CISLAC executive director further urged the committee to trace the alleged N400 million through financial records, including bank statements, withdrawal records, payment instructions, communications and telephone records.

He warned that without following the money trail, the investigation could be reduced to an inquiry into alleged forged documents rather than a broader examination of possible fraud, bribery, influence-peddling or abuse of office.

Rafsanjani also opposed any move to terminate the investigation merely because the committee had reached its administrative deadline.

He urged the House to extend the panel’s mandate if critical questions remained unresolved and called for all relevant witnesses to be compelled to appear.

Among CISLAC’s recommendations were that all principal actors, regardless of political status, should be invited to testify under oath; that the police should provide a comprehensive report on Tanimola’s death; that investigators should trace the alleged N400 million through financial records; and that a forensic audit should be conducted on accounts linked to the disputed council to determine whether public funds were released or expended.

A public affairs analyst, Jackson Ojo, also questioned the handling of the alleged N400 million transaction, describing it as potentially important evidence that should have received greater attention during the investigation.

Ojo said a credible probe required testimony from both those making the allegations and those accused or implicated.

He stressed that all relevant parties should be given an opportunity to present evidence and respond to allegations to ensure that the final findings were fair, transparent and comprehensive.

For three weeks, the committee questioned several senior government officials, including the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack; the Head of Banking Services at the Central Bank of Nigeria, Hamisu Abdullahi; the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Tanimu Yakubu; the Director of the Federal Project Finance Department, Joshua Luka; and senior police officers representing the Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu.

Despite the allegations surrounding the PFIPC, the committee did not invite Gbajabiamila to testify before it.

Meanwhile, Adeyemi, through his lawyer, Festus Akhigbe, has challenged the committee to provide him with an opportunity to appear and testify.

In a statement issued on Sunday, the legal team requested that the panel issue the necessary administrative clearance for Adeyemi to appear personally before it.

The lawyers argued that any final report produced without giving their client an opportunity to be heard would be incomplete and contrary to the principle of fair hearing.

The controversy has also extended to allegations concerning properties allegedly allocated to the disputed council by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Adeyemi’s lawyers had alleged that the EFCC allocated a property to the council, requested N300 million as a processing consideration and presented a plaque of recognition to its leadership.

However, a senior EFCC official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to comment publicly, rejected any suggestion that the commission privately disposed of forfeited assets or demanded unofficial payments.

The official explained that forfeited properties belonged to the Federal Government and could only be transferred to government institutions on the directive of the Presidency.

He added that where government agencies acquired such properties, payments for outright purchases or leases were made directly into the Central Bank of Nigeria account.

The clarification followed claims by Adeyemi’s legal representatives while defending their client’s position against allegations that the PFIPC was not a legitimate government agency.

The EFCC spokesman, Dele Oyewale, could not be reached for comment as calls to his telephone were unanswered and he had yet to respond to a message sent to him.

The controversy surrounding the PFIPC continues to centre on the legal status of the organisation, the authenticity of documents associated with its operations, alleged financial transactions and the identities and roles of individuals who may have facilitated its activities.

With the House committee preparing its final report, attention is now focused on whether the panel will conclude the investigation as scheduled or extend its mandate to address the outstanding questions raised by lawmakers, civil society groups and other stakeholders.