Fresh controversy has surrounded the House of Representatives’ investigation into the alleged Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) as the committee prepares to submit its final report.
Lawmakers and civil society groups have questioned the panel’s handling of the investigation. They also called for a broader probe before the House concludes its assignment.
Lawmaker questions committee leadership
A member of the House criticised the decision to appoint Yusuf Gagdi as chairman of the ad hoc committee. The lawmaker argued that Gagdi had earlier sponsored the motion that led to the investigation.
According to him, the House should not have allowed the sponsor of the motion to chair the same probe. The lawmaker also questioned why the committee had yet to invite the President’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, despite allegations linking him to the controversy.
Concerns over investigation
The lawmaker also challenged the committee’s claim that signatures on documents linked to Gbajabiamila were inconsistent. He argued that many public officials use more than one signature in official documents. He further accused the committee of conducting what he described as a one-sided investigation. According to him, the panel also prevented some members from raising important questions during one of its sittings.
CISLAC demands wider investigation
The Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Ibrahim Rafsanjani, also expressed concerns about the investigation. He said the scandal raises serious questions about Nigeria’s public institutions, budgeting process and security system.
Rafsanjani argued that the committee should investigate how the disputed council gained recognition across several government agencies. He also urged the panel to determine whether public funds were released or spent in connection with the council’s activities.
Calls for Tanimola’s death to be investigated
CISLAC also criticised the committee for failing to thoroughly examine the death of Dolapo Tanimola. Tanimola reportedly served as an intermediary in allegations involving a ₦400 million payment.
According to Rafsanjani, investigators should obtain details of any autopsy, forensic examination and police investigation linked to the incident. He said leaving those questions unanswered could weaken public confidence in the probe.
Stakeholders seek financial audit
The organisation also urged the committee to trace the alleged ₦400 million through bank records and other financial documents. It further called for a forensic audit of every account linked to the disputed council. Rafsanjani insisted that investigators should invite every key figure connected to the controversy, regardless of political status, to testify under oath.
Adeyemi seeks opportunity to testify
Meanwhile, Adeniyi Adeyemi, who describes himself as the Director-General of the PFIPC, has again asked the committee to allow him to testify.
Through his lawyer, Festus Akhigbe, Adeyemi argued that any report produced without hearing his side of the story would deny him fair hearing. His legal team maintained that the committee should grant him administrative clearance to appear before the panel.
EFCC responds to allegations
An official of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), who spoke anonymously, denied allegations that the commission demanded unofficial payments during the allocation of forfeited properties. The official explained that government agencies pay directly into the Central Bank of Nigeria whenever such transactions involve outright purchases or lease agreements.
The clarification followed allegations by Adeyemi’s legal team that the EFCC allocated property to the disputed council and requested a ₦300 million processing fee.
Read also: PFIPC: Head of Civil Service admits due diligence failed, accepts responsibility
