Lawyers representing Adeniyi Adeyemi, the man accused of creating the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), have alleged that several federal institutions played active roles in recognising and facilitating the operations of the council before authorities declared it illegal.
In a statement issued on Sunday, the legal team argued that it was unjust to focus criminal proceedings solely on their client while ignoring the actions of government institutions that allegedly interacted with the council over an extended period.
The lawyers questioned how a single individual could be held responsible for deceiving multiple federal agencies if those institutions had independently verified and processed the council’s activities.
“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 Matthew, be held uniquely responsible for failing to detect what the entire apparatus of the State validated?” the lawyers said.
“It is an administrative impossibility for an unassisted individual to mislead every arm of the federal government simultaneously without official, high-level institutional sanction,” they added.
According to the defence team, justice would not be served by “prosecuting the mouthpiece while ignoring the state machinery that built, budgeted and bureaucratically birthed the entity.”
The controversy began in October 2025 after the President’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, petitioned the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Nigeria Police Force over the establishment and operations of the PFIPC, which the Federal Government maintains was never legally created.
Following the petition, police filed an eight-count charge against Adeyemi and two other defendants, accusing them of forgery, impersonation and obtaining by false pretence.
The case experienced several adjournments before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Last month, Justice Mohammed Umar issued a bench warrant for Adeyemi’s arrest after he failed to appear for his arraignment.
His lawyer, Genesis Francis, opposed the prosecution’s application, telling the court that his client feared for his safety and had written an open letter to President Bola Tinubu, expressing his desire to remain alive to defend himself in court.
In response, the judge stated that “the court will help him to be alive” before ordering his arrest.
Adeyemi was subsequently apprehended by the police less than 12 hours after the warrant was issued and remains in custody ahead of the next hearing scheduled for September 30.
Meanwhile, the House of Representatives has launched a separate investigation into how the PFIPC obtained office accommodation, official recognition and budgetary allocations despite questions surrounding its legal status.
During its latest hearing, the ad hoc committee chaired by Yusuf Gagdi directed the Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, to produce Adeyemi before lawmakers, prompting Sunday’s statement from his legal representatives.
The lawyers argued that available government records contradict the portrayal of their client as a lone impostor, insisting that the council left what they described as a “verifiable administrative footprint.”
According to the statement, investigators should scrutinise the actions of institutions that allegedly recognised and processed the council’s documentation rather than concentrating exclusively on Adeyemi.
The legal team alleged that the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation acknowledged official documents submitted by the council and facilitated office allocation within the Federal Secretariat.
They also claimed that the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and the Central Bank of Nigeria processed documents that led to the issuance of budget codes, approval of self-accounting status, deployment of civil servants and the opening of official accounts for the council.
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 the engagement of 314 personnel.
They also claimed that the Budget Office of the Federation and the National Assembly processed documents that resulted in the inclusion of a ₦1.302 billion allocation for the PFIPC in the 2026 Appropriation Act, which was later passed by lawmakers and signed into law by President Bola Tinubu.
The defence further alleged that senior officials of key security agencies attended programmes organised by the council, while the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) allocated a property to the organisation, requested ₦300 million as processing consideration and presented a plaque recognising its leadership.
The Federal Government, however, maintains that the PFIPC was never lawfully established despite operating from the Federal Secretariat, maintaining bank accounts and obtaining various government approvals.
Police have alleged that forged documents were used to secure official recognition for the council and accused Adeyemi of falsely presenting himself as its Director-General. He has denied all the allegations.
On July 8, the House of Representatives resolved to investigate how the PFIPC secured a ₦1.302 billion allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act despite lacking legal backing.
Lawmakers subsequently constituted an ad hoc committee to trace how the allocation was included in the budget and identify those responsible.
At its July 27 hearing, the committee disclosed that it had uncovered 29 documents believed to have been forged in connection with the council’s operations and directed the Inspector-General of Police to produce Adeyemi before lawmakers within 48 hours.
The committee said his appearance was necessary to conclude its investigation, while the defence insists that resolving the controversy requires examining the roles played by all institutions that dealt with the PFIPC rather than focusing solely on one individual.
