Reps uncover 58 bank accounts, ₦400m transaction in PFIPC investigation

By Kazeem Ugbodaga

The controversy surrounding the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, PFIPC, has taken a dramatic turn, with a House of Representatives investigative panel uncovering about 58 bank accounts allegedly linked to the organisation’s detained Director-General, Adeniyi Adeyemi, as well as an alleged ₦400 million transaction now under investigation.

The discoveries were contained in the preliminary findings of the House Ad Hoc Committee investigating how the purported agency secured recognition within parts of the Federal Government’s administrative and budgetary system despite, according to the panel, having no valid legal instrument establishing it.

Presenting the findings in Abuja on Wednesday, committee chairman Yusuf Gagdi said preliminary financial information showed that identifying details associated with Adeyemi were linked to approximately 58 bank accounts, with more than 30 apparently operated in the names of about nine agencies, companies, foundations or related entities.

The committee identified a wider network of more than 12 entities allegedly associated with Adeyemi, including organisations bearing names connected to investment promotion, United Nations youth initiatives, entrepreneurship, education and foundations.

Gagdi, however, cautioned that the discovery of the accounts did not by itself establish criminality.

He said the committee was still reconciling account mandates, registration records, beneficial ownership information, signatories and transaction histories to determine who controlled the accounts and how they were used.

At the centre of the financial investigation is an alleged ₦400 million transaction involving a company which told the committee that Adeyemi induced it to make payments in four instalments.

According to the preliminary findings, the company allegedly believed the payments were connected to a contract for the renovation, furnishing or improvement of a residential property presented as Adeyemi’s official residence in his claimed capacity as PFIPC director-general.

The committee said it is tracing the destination of the money, identifying account holders and beneficial owners and establishing the ownership and status of the property.

Adeyemi has previously claimed that he borrowed ₦400 million to secure his appointment, while denying wrongdoing. He has also made allegations against the Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, Femi Gbajabiamila, over the money. Gbajabiamila has denied the allegations.

The most troubling dimension of the investigation, however, may not be the number of accounts or the alleged ₦400 million transaction, but how the purported organisation managed to penetrate government structures in the first place.

The House panel said it found no valid Act of the National Assembly, gazetted enactment, presidential executive order or other lawful instrument establishing the PFIPC.

It also uncovered alleged fabricated official documents, including a purported presidential appointment letter, an alleged Executive Order and a document presented as an Act of the National Assembly.

Evidence presented to the committee indicated that the Presidency did not issue Adeyemi’s purported appointment letter.

The panel subsequently exonerated Gbajabiamila in the PFIPC scandal, saying the evidence before it did not establish that he authorised, established or participated in the activities of the purported organisation.

Yet the organisation allegedly occupied government office accommodation, projected itself online as a federal institution and used the names, photographs and offices of senior government officials.

The committee said approximately 39 people were also presented as employees, with investigators examining their recruitment, appointment letters, identity cards, remuneration and allegations that some prospective employees may have been asked to pay money to secure employment.

The panel has called for financial records linked to the accounts and entities to be preserved and for relevant investigative agencies to trace, freeze and recover any proceeds of unlawful conduct where established in accordance with the law.

It stressed that its findings remain preliminary and do not constitute a determination of criminal guilt.

The final report, according to Gagdi, will identify institutional and individual responsibilities and recommend appropriate legislative, administrative, civil, financial and prosecutorial action where supported by evidence.