Intrusion of diurnal presidential council into govt parastatals

THE security guard stood at attention, straightened instinctively and raised his hand in salute as the black Mercedes Benz glided past the checkpoint into the sprawling government complexes in Abuja: “Good morning, Director General,” he showed a sign of respect in military style. Inside the stately car, a gentleman adjusted his suit before stepping onto the stairways with measured confidence, while a leather folder was tucked beneath his arm. An aide hurried over: “Sir, the visitors are waiting.” He nodded in response. Hurrying to keep pace, a protocol officer ushered him in: “Conference Room A is ready, sir…The diplomats are already waiting, sir,” the officer curtsied. The glamorous gentleman nodded without breaking stride. Some minutes later, strong reddish-brown wood doors swung open. Foreign delegates rose from their seats. Pleasantries were exchanged. Pictures were taken by photographers. In the inner sector of the federal secretariat building, a civil servant was busy stamping documents bearing the seal of the Presidency. In another office, files carrying the name of a ‘presidential council’ moved from one point to another. Somewhere in the maze of government bureaucracy, financial paperwork was being processed. Nobody hesitates. Nobody objects. Nobody asks the simplest question of all: “Does this office actually exist?”

Several days later, the ‘fake (GHOST) council’ called Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) started appearing on the pages of the national budget. Everything looked official. Everything sounded official. Everyone behaved as though it was official. Then, just overnight, the nation was informed that the name of such ‘council’ is clearly unauthorised. Not that it had been dissolved. Not that it had exceeded its mandate. Not that it has fallen out of favour, but because the deal has been truncated. Much to the nation’s surprise a parastatal not owned by the government organisation, not established by the government statute to render specified services to the public has been exposed. It was never structured, never operated according to the established state instrument and it was never under the Policy Directives of Government. Quite simply, it had never existed. This single declaration transformed what might have been an ordinary fraud case into one of the most unsettling governance scandals in the Nigerian socio-political epic.

If the Presidency is correct, then the fictitious Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) is probably a hoax that somehow walked through the highest corridors of power, held meetings, enjoyed official recognition and reportedly found a place within the machinery of government without anyone stopping to ask the most fundamental question: Who authorised it? If the story is more complicated than the official account suggests, then Nigeria is confronting an even darker possibility that a ghost institution was not merely overlooked, but quietly supported by unscrupulous powers within the state. The PFIPC immorality is no longer about one soul accused of forging documents. The big question is: Are Nigerian establishments still having the nerve to separate legitimacy from illusion? Until the question is answered in earnest and clearly, every official disclaimer issued after the fact will sound less like reassurance and more like admission that those guarding the state did not know who or what they were protecting in their safeguarding role.

For all the institutional safeguards to fail simultaneously in their responsibility to arrest this elaborate fraud suggests that the issue extends far beyond the actions of one individual. The cliquish attitudes of hidden cartels operating in the government establishments are questionable in this regard. Despite this failure in safeguarding, it is highly significant to still recognise that the Presidency stood its ground; it has not ignored the matter. It vehemently disowned PFIPC, initiated criminal proceedings and directed security operatives to look into the matters surrounding its operations. It is worthy of saying that similar sophisticated frauds have been occurring in many countries across the world. In most cases, the criminals often exploit bureaucratic weaknesses, forge convincing documentations and manipulate institutional trusts. Such elaborate fraudulent deceptions occurring across the globe have all initially evaded detection. Our deduction, therefore, is based on the fact that PFIPC is ‘a carefully executed fraudulent council operated undetected for a long time rather than an officially instituted organization meant to benefit the generality of Nigerian peoples.’

Another question now is: “Who and what the Presidency of the Nigerian state is?” The answer is simple: “The Presidency of Nigeria is solely vested in the President of Nigeria.” The onus, therefore, rests on the President to react promptly in order to arrest the situation administratively. Events are already playing-on in the official explanations from the Presidency. These clarifications are begging for interrogative questions of how and when such ‘diurnal presidential council’ entered the government circle. These events had, however, raised new possibilities instead of settling the old ones. If a lone person tactically put up the appearance of a presidential institution for over a long period of time without early detection, then many government processes must have failed. For example, someone processed documents, someone authorised access, someone accepted official mails, someone recognised the fake council, and someone failed to verify its legal existence. Going by all these, it is apposite to state that the scandal has shifted from being a criminal prosecution to becoming a critical scrutiny of our institutional competence. Fraud can deceive people. It should not deceive an entire bureaucracy.

The most politically instructive analysis of the PFIPC issue is based on its appearance in the 2026 appropriation bill. The budget has created an even bigger political problem.

READ ALSO: PFIPC scandal reflects deeper rot in Nigeria — Anglican Archbishop

The most politically damaging revelation is that “Nigeria’s 2026 appropriation act contained an allocation of roughly #1.3 billion for an entity called Presidential Economic Adversary Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council.” It is worthy of note that budgets do not emerge by mistake. They journey through ministries, technical committees, National Assembly and Federal Executive Council before receiving presidential consent. If an organisation that is claimed to have never been in existence appeared in that chain, then two conclusions can be made. Either the government officials purposely included it or the officials approved the budgetary allocation without verifying the legal status of the obnoxious organisation. If this is the case, it is apropos to declare here that the presence of such an allocation in the budget demands a full-scale investigation with transparent explanation from people involved. The defensive responses to the above allegations so far are: (1) the agency has not received any budgetary allocation from the federal government, (2) the council funding is expected to operate under the 2026 budget, but it has not yet reached the stage where it can receive government allocation, (3) salaries had not been paid to the council’s workers because the agency has not recruited any staff through the processes required for federal establishments, and (4) none of the requisites for the agency take-off had been completed.

Also, the involvement of Central Bank of Nigeria in this plotline has raised great concerns. Though there is no evidence that the CBN purposefully acknowledged the fictitious organisation, but if accounts were really opened using dubious documentations, then existing verification processes need immediate review. The central bank is believed to operate accurate compliance standards and if those criteria proved insufficient in this instance, the lesson is not to just apportion blame, but to realign the system’s structure in order to prevent similar future occurrences. The Central Bank of Nigeria has become part of the controversy because the Presidency alleged that Adeniyi Adeyemi fraudulently obtained a CBN account using forged government documentation and by deceiving officials involved in government financial administration. However, there is no public allegation that CBN as an institution created PFIPC rather the issue is whether weaknesses in verification processes or possible collaboration allowed such an account to be opened. The defensive arguments for all these from the accountant-general of the federation are: (1) the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council has no operational account with the Central Bank of Nigeria- NO KOBO HAS BEEN RELEASED, and (2) although an application was made to open a CBN account, the process was never completed because the required documentation to activate the account was not submitted. It presupposes the fact that “you cannot open an account at the CBN without authorisation from the Accountant General.” This supportive statement has been used to settle all sorts of arguments from myriads of sectors on human interest.

In their own case, the opposition groups have clearly reiterated that the scandal cannot be explained based on mere actions of one singular person. It is viewed that their criticisms rest just on assumptions and probabilities. They assumed that “one person may forge document, but he cannot easily create institutional recognition… He must have had official cooperation somewhere along the line.” They claimed that “PFIPC has demonstrated systemic failure rather than isolated criminality”. They equally argued that “the Presidency has focused heavily on prosecuting the alleged architect while paying less attention to exposing all the officials who aided the operation.” These criticisms still deserve careful consideration. Historical antecedents have clearly shown that institutional scandals barely survive through an individual effort alone, but they survive because many people choose convenience over verification. However, the opposition still needs to avoid converting unanswered questions into established facts. Political frustration should not substitute for evidence. They must realise the fact that “the temptation to assume that every institutional failure necessarily reflects deliberate conspiracy can be misleading.” Therefore, while demanding a justifiable accountability in its entirety, assigning criminal responsibility before investigations conclude would undermine the very rule of law that critics seek to defend. Investigations, not political assumptions, must determine where responsibility ultimately lies.

An overview of our arguments so far has revealed the fact that the prevailing PFIPC issue should become an opportunity for institutional reform rather than merely another political scandal. The Presidency should publish a comprehensive account detailing how the alleged organisation surfaced, how it related with government functionaries and how it was eventual exposed. The National Assembly should be mandated to investigate the purported budget allocation and reveal if any public funds were disbursed to the questionable council. Government parastatals should be encouraged to establish a publicly accessible digital register of all presidential councils, committees, and special offices in order to eliminate uncertainty about their legal standing. The Central Bank and other financial institutions should fortify their verification processes for accounts opened in the name of all government establishments. Accountability must not stop with the alleged architect of this fraudulent act. Any public official found guilty of facilitating the dubious business interaction or corrupt practice, and negligence in established procedures should be made to face the right disciplinary or legal actions. “An audit of all offices and residential facilities in the federal secretariat as well as the State House must be carried out.” Finally, the president should endeavour to institute a panel of inquiry to look into this fake agency.

•Elebute, Professor of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies writes from Resource Centre for Arts, Culture and Communication Development.