The controversy surrounding the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has intensified, with civil society organisations and legal practitioners calling for an independent investigation into the matter instead of relying solely on the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
The calls followed President Bola Tinubu’s directive instructing the ICPC to investigate the alleged fake agency and submit its findings within 30 days.
The controversy centres on Matthew Adeniyi Adeyemi, who claimed to be Director-General of the PFIPC and alleged that his appointment was facilitated by the President’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila. Although Gbajabiamila has denied any involvement and threatened legal action over the allegations, the controversy has persisted after the council appeared in the 2026 Appropriation Act with a budgetary allocation of about N1.3 billion.
Several stakeholders argue that the Presidency’s earlier public statements on the matter have raised concerns about whether an investigation supervised within government structures would enjoy public confidence.
Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, also joined the calls, insisting Nigerians deserve a transparent investigation that follows available evidence without political interference.
The Executive Director of the Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice (ANEEJ), Rev. David Ugolor, said public officials connected to the allegations should temporarily step aside while investigations continue. According to him, such a move would strengthen public confidence in the integrity of the investigation and reduce any perception of interference.
Ugolor described the PFIPC controversy as another indication of weaknesses in governance and institutional safeguards, stressing that transparency and accountability must remain central to the process. He argued that the credibility of the investigation would depend not only on the institution conducting it but also on whether the process is seen as fair, transparent and independent.
He further advised that the investigation should include publicly available terms of reference, adequate protection for witnesses, full disclosure of findings and legal consequences for anyone found culpable.
The Executive Director of the International Press Centre (IPC), Lanre Arogundade, acknowledged that the ICPC has the legal authority to investigate corruption-related allegations but maintained that an independent inquiry would have inspired greater confidence.
According to him, the matter has generated significant public interest and involves issues already before the courts, making transparency especially important. He said a separate inquiry process could have strengthened public trust while complementing existing legal proceedings.
Country Director of ActionAid Nigeria, Dr. Andrew Mamedu, said the focus should not merely be on which institution conducts the investigation but on whether the process is transparent, professional and free from interference. He maintained that Nigerians would judge the credibility of the exercise based on its fairness, openness and willingness to follow evidence wherever it leads.
Mamedu described the investigation as an opportunity to strengthen public institutions, improve accountability mechanisms and reinforce citizens’ confidence in government. He added that the findings should be made public and that anyone found responsible should face appropriate legal consequences irrespective of political status.
Legal practitioners also expressed differing opinions on the President’s directive. Human rights lawyer Idris Faro described the ICPC as the appropriate statutory body to investigate corruption-related matters, noting that there was no constitutional requirement to establish a separate commission of inquiry. He, however, insisted that the investigation should not end with recommendations but should lead to prosecution if wrongdoing is established.
Another human rights lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, maintained that the Presidency had already taken a position by publicly defending the Chief of Staff before the investigation commenced. He argued that Gbajabiamila should temporarily step aside to eliminate any perception of influence over the investigation.
According to Adeyanju, an inquiry involving independent investigators outside government structures would enjoy greater public confidence, while Nigerians should continue demanding accountability throughout the process. He also questioned how an agency previously described by the Presidency as fictitious later appeared in the federal budget, saying the contradiction deserved thorough scrutiny.
Managing Partner of Cornerstone Advocates, Toluwa Odekhe, said the President acted within constitutional powers by directing the ICPC to investigate the allegations.
He explained that the anti-corruption commission possesses the statutory authority to summon witnesses, investigate allegations and prosecute corruption cases. However, Odekhe warned that the credibility of the exercise would depend on whether the ICPC operates independently and resists political pressure.
He recommended that investigators publish clear terms of reference, ensure relevant budgetary documents are examined, protect whistleblowers and allow the National Assembly to exercise effective oversight. According to him, the outcome should either lead to prosecution where evidence supports criminal liability or provide a transparent public exoneration if the allegations are found to be false.
The PFIPC controversy has remained one of Nigeria’s most debated governance issues following conflicting official narratives about the council’s legal status, budgetary allocation and operational activities. With calls for transparency growing from civil society, legal experts and opposition figures, attention is now focused on whether the ICPC investigation will address public concerns and restore confidence in government accountability processes.
