PFIPC probe faces fresh scrutiny as Reps near final report

Fresh controversy has enveloped the House of Representatives’ investigation into the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), with lawmakers and civil society groups questioning the credibility of the exercise as the ad hoc committee prepares to submit its final report.

The committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, is expected to wrap up its assignment in the coming weeks before presenting its findings to the House during plenary. However, concerns over the conduct of the probe have intensified, with critics alleging that key witnesses were ignored and crucial issues left unresolved.

A member of the House, who spoke anonymously, faulted the decision to appoint Gagdi to lead the panel, arguing that he had earlier sponsored the motion that led to the investigation.

According to the lawmaker, allowing the sponsor of an investigative motion to chair the committee examining the same matter undermines the perception of neutrality and fairness.

He also questioned why the committee failed to invite the President’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, despite allegations linking him to the controversy.

The lawmaker further criticised the panel’s conclusion that signatures on documents allegedly connected to Gbajabiamila differed from those on other official correspondence, arguing that prominent public officials often maintain multiple authorised signatures.

He also accused the committee of conducting what he described as a one-sided investigation, alleging that members who attempted to raise probing questions during hearings were prevented from doing so.

Adding to the criticism, former Secretary-General of the Arewa Consultative Forum and APC chieftain, Anthony Sani, urged the committee to ensure every aspect of the scandal is thoroughly examined before submitting its report.

He said the investigation should address the circumstances surrounding the death of Dolapo Tanimola, who was identified in allegations related to the controversial council.

Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Ibrahim Rafsanjani, also expressed dissatisfaction with the scope of the investigation, insisting that the inquiry should extend beyond determining whether appointment documents were genuine or forged.

According to him, lawmakers should establish how the disputed council allegedly gained access to several government institutions, identify officials who facilitated its operations and determine whether public funds were released or mismanaged.

Rafsanjani argued that the committee failed to adequately interrogate the circumstances surrounding Tanimola’s death, despite allegations that he allegedly handled ₦400 million linked to the controversy.

He maintained that a credible investigation should examine financial records, banking transactions, communication logs and other documentary evidence to establish the source, movement and intended destination of the funds.

He also insisted that the committee should summon every principal actor connected with the matter, regardless of official position, warning that excluding key individuals could undermine public confidence in the outcome.

Public affairs analyst Jackson Ojo echoed similar concerns, saying the investigation could not be considered comprehensive without hearing directly from those at the centre of the allegations.

He argued that both accusers and those accused should have been given the opportunity to present evidence and respond to claims before any conclusions are reached.

During its sittings, the 12-member committee questioned several senior government officials, including the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack; representatives of the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Budget Office and the Nigeria Police Force.

However, critics have continued to question the absence of Gbajabiamila from the hearings despite allegations made against him by Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, the self-acclaimed Director-General of the PFIPC.

Adeyemi, through his lawyer, Festus Akhigbe, recently demanded an opportunity to appear before the committee, insisting that denying him the chance to testify would violate his constitutional right to a fair hearing.

Meanwhile, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has dismissed suggestions that it improperly transferred forfeited assets linked to the controversy.

A senior EFCC official, who declined to be named because he was not authorised to speak publicly, said all forfeited assets remain government property and can only be allocated to public institutions with presidential approval.

The official explained that payments for such assets, whether through outright purchase or lease, are made directly into the Central Bank of Nigeria and not to the commission.

The clarification followed claims by Adeyemi’s legal team that the EFCC allocated a property to the disputed council, demanded ₦300 million as processing fees and formally recognised its leadership.

With the committee set to conclude its work, pressure is mounting on lawmakers to ensure the final report addresses lingering questions surrounding the PFIPC’s operations, institutional recognition and the roles of all individuals and agencies linked to the controversy.