Adedayo Akinwale in Abuja
The House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) said the purported letter of appointment of Mr. Adeniyi Adeyemi as the Director General was doctored.
The House committee in the preliminary reports released Wednesday said the evidence received from the State House established that no such appointment was made or approved by the Presidency.
The Committee examined a document purporting to convey the appointment of Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi as Director-General of the organisation.
The report stressed that the document was presented as an official communication of the Presidency and purportedly bore the authority and signature of the Chief of Staff to the President, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila.
It noted that the Gbajabiamila neither issued nor signed the letter, adding that the letterhead was not an authentic State House letterhead.
It added: “No such appointment was made or approved by the Presidency. The Chief of Staff neither issued nor signed the letter. The letterhead was not an authentic State House letterhead;
“The purported reference number was inconsistent with the official referencing system of the State House;
“The format, language and administrative features of the document departed materially from official State House correspondence.
“The committee therefore preliminary finds that the purported appointment letter revealed that the purported appointment letter was fabricated and falsely attributed to the Presidency.
“Such conduct, if established through the applicable criminal process, would constitute a grave assault on the integrity of the Office of the President and the official identity of the Federal Government.
“The unlawful creation or deployment of a document calculated to represent that the President or the Chief of Staff had authorised the appointment of a person to head a non-existent federal institution cannot be treated as a mere administrative irregularity. It is a matter deserving the most serious investigative and prosecutorial attention.”
The Committee also examined a purported communication conveying approval for the take-off of an entity described as the Presidential Economic Advisory Council.
The report revealed that evidence presently before the Committee indicated that the document did not emanate from the Presidency, State House or any other competent authority of the federal government.
The preliminary evidence suggested that the document formed part of a broader documentary architecture designed to clothe an unestablished organisation with a false appearance of governmental authority.
The Committee examined a document described as Presidential Executive Order No. 5 of 24 February 2026, which was represented as presidential authority for the establishment or operation of the organisation.
The report added that the evidence presently available indicated that the document was not an authentic Executive Order of the President and was neither issued nor approved through the lawful processes of the Presidency.
It noted: “The fabrication or falsification of an instrument represented to the public as an Executive Order of the President is an exceptionally serious matter.
“An Executive Order carries the authority of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Any attempt to manufacture such an instrument for the purpose of procuring official recognition, financial advantage or public confidence strikes at the very foundation of lawful executive authority.”
The report added that no competent authority of the federal government has produced any authentic record establishing that the organisation was created, approved or authorised by the President, Federal Executive Council, National Assembly, Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation or any other institution empowered by law to establish such an agency.
The report disclosed that the organisation operated under inconsistent descriptions, including the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council and the Presidential Economic Advisory Council.
The report noted that these inconsistencies, when considered alongside the documentary evidence before the Committee, substantially undermine any assertion that the entity possessed lawful governmental status.
The report said the preliminary documentary examination established that:The document was never enacted by the National Assembly; It was never passed by both Chambers of the National Assembly; It was not assented to by the President; and it was not gazetted as an Act of the federation.
It stated: “The Committee discovered a letter dated 7 November 2024, purportedly emanating from the StateHouse and addressed to the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, requesting the creation or issuance of an administrative code for the PFIPC.
“The letter was purportedly signed by one Mr. Akambi Adewale, described as “Director, Administration and Support Services,” for the Permanent Secretary.
“Evidence received from the State House established that: The office represented in the document did not exist in the stated form. The purported Directorate of Administration and Support Services did not exist as represented. No State House officer known as Mr. Akambi Adewale served in the purported capacity; and
“The letter was neither issued nor authorised by the State House. The Committee therefore preliminarily finds that fictitious names, offices and official designations were deployed in a document calculated to mislead an important financial institution of the federal government.
‘‘The creation of fictitious public officers and nonexistent government directorates for the purpose of procuring governmental recognition represents a particularly audacious form of institutional impersonation.”
The report, however, noted that the Committee considers it a serious administrative and security lapse that official correspondence addressed to the State House could allegedly have been collected by a person connected with the forged originating request.
The report stressed that the Committee is therefore investigating whether the circumstances arose from negligence, failure to observe elementary verification requirements, breach of established correspondence procedures, wilful disregard of due process or deliberate facilitation.
Follow the story
