The House of Representatives on Wednesday constituted an ad hoc committee to investigate the legality of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council following allegations that the body was fraudulently presented as a federal agency and had a provision of over N1.3bn inserted into the 2026 Appropriation framework.The committee, to be chaired by the Chairman of the House Committee on Navy, Yusuf Gagdi (APC, Plateau), was mandated to investigate how the purported agency found its way into the federal budget and determine whether any government processes were compromised.The ‘fake’ agency is the subject of a legal redress with its embattled Director General, Adeyemi Adeniyi, expected to stand trial in the weeks ahead.He has accused the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, of facilitating the creation of the ‘fake’ agency in expectation of some financial gratification.The Presidency has, however, dismissed the allegation, describing Adeyemi as a fraudster.The resolution by the House followed the adoption of a motion of urgent national importance sponsored by Gagdi and seconded by Kafilat Ogbara (APC, Lagos).Moving the motion, Gagdi alleged that an entity operating under the name Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council had presented itself as a government institution despite having no valid legal foundation.He said the organisation operated from the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja, between November 2024 and October 2025, engaging with government institutions, although the Federal Government has maintained that no such agency was ever lawfully established.Gagdi said, “The House notes that between November 2024 and October 2025, an entity styling itself as Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council operated at the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja and interacted with various organs of government, although the Federal Government has since declared that no such agency was ever lawfully established.”He noted that allegations surrounding the entity, including claims of forgery and impersonation, are already subject to investigation and criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court, Abuja.The lawmaker stressed that the House investigation was not intended to interfere with the court process.“This motion neither prejudges nor seeks to pre-empt the probe ordered by the President,” he said.Gagdi told lawmakers that the purported council relied on documents allegedly claiming it was established under a provision cited as Chapter N2117 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, but that records of the National Assembly showed no legislation creating such an institution.He noted that the closest reference was Chapter N117, which relates to the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, suggesting that the alleged council may have been attempting to duplicate an existing statutory body.“The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The committee, to be chaired by the Chairman of the House Committee on Navy, Yusuf Gagdi (APC, Plateau), was mandated to investigate how the purported agency found its way into the federal budget and determine whether any government processes were compromised.The ‘fake’ agency is the subject of a legal redress with its embattled Director General, Adeyemi Adeniyi, expected to stand trial in the weeks ahead.He has accused the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, of facilitating the creation of the ‘fake’ agency in expectation of some financial gratification.The Presidency has, however, dismissed the allegation, describing Adeyemi as a fraudster.The resolution by the House followed the adoption of a motion of urgent national importance sponsored by Gagdi and seconded by Kafilat Ogbara (APC, Lagos).Moving the motion, Gagdi alleged that an entity operating under the name Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council had presented itself as a government institution despite having no valid legal foundation.He said the organisation operated from the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja, between November 2024 and October 2025, engaging with government institutions, although the Federal Government has maintained that no such agency was ever lawfully established.Gagdi said, “The House notes that between November 2024 and October 2025, an entity styling itself as Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council operated at the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja and interacted with various organs of government, although the Federal Government has since declared that no such agency was ever lawfully established.”He noted that allegations surrounding the entity, including claims of forgery and impersonation, are already subject to investigation and criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court, Abuja.The lawmaker stressed that the House investigation was not intended to interfere with the court process.“This motion neither prejudges nor seeks to pre-empt the probe ordered by the President,” he said.Gagdi told lawmakers that the purported council relied on documents allegedly claiming it was established under a provision cited as Chapter N2117 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, but that records of the National Assembly showed no legislation creating such an institution.He noted that the closest reference was Chapter N117, which relates to the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, suggesting that the alleged council may have been attempting to duplicate an existing statutory body.“The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The ‘fake’ agency is the subject of a legal redress with its embattled Director General, Adeyemi Adeniyi, expected to stand trial in the weeks ahead.He has accused the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, of facilitating the creation of the ‘fake’ agency in expectation of some financial gratification.The Presidency has, however, dismissed the allegation, describing Adeyemi as a fraudster.The resolution by the House followed the adoption of a motion of urgent national importance sponsored by Gagdi and seconded by Kafilat Ogbara (APC, Lagos).Moving the motion, Gagdi alleged that an entity operating under the name Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council had presented itself as a government institution despite having no valid legal foundation.He said the organisation operated from the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja, between November 2024 and October 2025, engaging with government institutions, although the Federal Government has maintained that no such agency was ever lawfully established.Gagdi said, “The House notes that between November 2024 and October 2025, an entity styling itself as Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council operated at the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja and interacted with various organs of government, although the Federal Government has since declared that no such agency was ever lawfully established.”He noted that allegations surrounding the entity, including claims of forgery and impersonation, are already subject to investigation and criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court, Abuja.The lawmaker stressed that the House investigation was not intended to interfere with the court process.“This motion neither prejudges nor seeks to pre-empt the probe ordered by the President,” he said.Gagdi told lawmakers that the purported council relied on documents allegedly claiming it was established under a provision cited as Chapter N2117 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, but that records of the National Assembly showed no legislation creating such an institution.He noted that the closest reference was Chapter N117, which relates to the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, suggesting that the alleged council may have been attempting to duplicate an existing statutory body.“The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. He has accused the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, of facilitating the creation of the ‘fake’ agency in expectation of some financial gratification.The Presidency has, however, dismissed the allegation, describing Adeyemi as a fraudster.The resolution by the House followed the adoption of a motion of urgent national importance sponsored by Gagdi and seconded by Kafilat Ogbara (APC, Lagos).Moving the motion, Gagdi alleged that an entity operating under the name Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council had presented itself as a government institution despite having no valid legal foundation.He said the organisation operated from the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja, between November 2024 and October 2025, engaging with government institutions, although the Federal Government has maintained that no such agency was ever lawfully established.Gagdi said, “The House notes that between November 2024 and October 2025, an entity styling itself as Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council operated at the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja and interacted with various organs of government, although the Federal Government has since declared that no such agency was ever lawfully established.”He noted that allegations surrounding the entity, including claims of forgery and impersonation, are already subject to investigation and criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court, Abuja.The lawmaker stressed that the House investigation was not intended to interfere with the court process.“This motion neither prejudges nor seeks to pre-empt the probe ordered by the President,” he said.Gagdi told lawmakers that the purported council relied on documents allegedly claiming it was established under a provision cited as Chapter N2117 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, but that records of the National Assembly showed no legislation creating such an institution.He noted that the closest reference was Chapter N117, which relates to the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, suggesting that the alleged council may have been attempting to duplicate an existing statutory body.“The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The Presidency has, however, dismissed the allegation, describing Adeyemi as a fraudster.The resolution by the House followed the adoption of a motion of urgent national importance sponsored by Gagdi and seconded by Kafilat Ogbara (APC, Lagos).Moving the motion, Gagdi alleged that an entity operating under the name Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council had presented itself as a government institution despite having no valid legal foundation.He said the organisation operated from the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja, between November 2024 and October 2025, engaging with government institutions, although the Federal Government has maintained that no such agency was ever lawfully established.Gagdi said, “The House notes that between November 2024 and October 2025, an entity styling itself as Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council operated at the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja and interacted with various organs of government, although the Federal Government has since declared that no such agency was ever lawfully established.”He noted that allegations surrounding the entity, including claims of forgery and impersonation, are already subject to investigation and criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court, Abuja.The lawmaker stressed that the House investigation was not intended to interfere with the court process.“This motion neither prejudges nor seeks to pre-empt the probe ordered by the President,” he said.Gagdi told lawmakers that the purported council relied on documents allegedly claiming it was established under a provision cited as Chapter N2117 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, but that records of the National Assembly showed no legislation creating such an institution.He noted that the closest reference was Chapter N117, which relates to the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, suggesting that the alleged council may have been attempting to duplicate an existing statutory body.“The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The resolution by the House followed the adoption of a motion of urgent national importance sponsored by Gagdi and seconded by Kafilat Ogbara (APC, Lagos).Moving the motion, Gagdi alleged that an entity operating under the name Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council had presented itself as a government institution despite having no valid legal foundation.He said the organisation operated from the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja, between November 2024 and October 2025, engaging with government institutions, although the Federal Government has maintained that no such agency was ever lawfully established.Gagdi said, “The House notes that between November 2024 and October 2025, an entity styling itself as Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council operated at the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja and interacted with various organs of government, although the Federal Government has since declared that no such agency was ever lawfully established.”He noted that allegations surrounding the entity, including claims of forgery and impersonation, are already subject to investigation and criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court, Abuja.The lawmaker stressed that the House investigation was not intended to interfere with the court process.“This motion neither prejudges nor seeks to pre-empt the probe ordered by the President,” he said.Gagdi told lawmakers that the purported council relied on documents allegedly claiming it was established under a provision cited as Chapter N2117 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, but that records of the National Assembly showed no legislation creating such an institution.He noted that the closest reference was Chapter N117, which relates to the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, suggesting that the alleged council may have been attempting to duplicate an existing statutory body.“The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. Moving the motion, Gagdi alleged that an entity operating under the name Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council had presented itself as a government institution despite having no valid legal foundation.He said the organisation operated from the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja, between November 2024 and October 2025, engaging with government institutions, although the Federal Government has maintained that no such agency was ever lawfully established.Gagdi said, “The House notes that between November 2024 and October 2025, an entity styling itself as Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council operated at the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja and interacted with various organs of government, although the Federal Government has since declared that no such agency was ever lawfully established.”He noted that allegations surrounding the entity, including claims of forgery and impersonation, are already subject to investigation and criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court, Abuja.The lawmaker stressed that the House investigation was not intended to interfere with the court process.“This motion neither prejudges nor seeks to pre-empt the probe ordered by the President,” he said.Gagdi told lawmakers that the purported council relied on documents allegedly claiming it was established under a provision cited as Chapter N2117 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, but that records of the National Assembly showed no legislation creating such an institution.He noted that the closest reference was Chapter N117, which relates to the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, suggesting that the alleged council may have been attempting to duplicate an existing statutory body.“The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. He said the organisation operated from the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja, between November 2024 and October 2025, engaging with government institutions, although the Federal Government has maintained that no such agency was ever lawfully established.Gagdi said, “The House notes that between November 2024 and October 2025, an entity styling itself as Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council operated at the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja and interacted with various organs of government, although the Federal Government has since declared that no such agency was ever lawfully established.”He noted that allegations surrounding the entity, including claims of forgery and impersonation, are already subject to investigation and criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court, Abuja.The lawmaker stressed that the House investigation was not intended to interfere with the court process.“This motion neither prejudges nor seeks to pre-empt the probe ordered by the President,” he said.Gagdi told lawmakers that the purported council relied on documents allegedly claiming it was established under a provision cited as Chapter N2117 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, but that records of the National Assembly showed no legislation creating such an institution.He noted that the closest reference was Chapter N117, which relates to the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, suggesting that the alleged council may have been attempting to duplicate an existing statutory body.“The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. Gagdi said, “The House notes that between November 2024 and October 2025, an entity styling itself as Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council operated at the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Abuja and interacted with various organs of government, although the Federal Government has since declared that no such agency was ever lawfully established.”He noted that allegations surrounding the entity, including claims of forgery and impersonation, are already subject to investigation and criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court, Abuja.The lawmaker stressed that the House investigation was not intended to interfere with the court process.“This motion neither prejudges nor seeks to pre-empt the probe ordered by the President,” he said.Gagdi told lawmakers that the purported council relied on documents allegedly claiming it was established under a provision cited as Chapter N2117 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, but that records of the National Assembly showed no legislation creating such an institution.He noted that the closest reference was Chapter N117, which relates to the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, suggesting that the alleged council may have been attempting to duplicate an existing statutory body.“The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. He noted that allegations surrounding the entity, including claims of forgery and impersonation, are already subject to investigation and criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court, Abuja.The lawmaker stressed that the House investigation was not intended to interfere with the court process.“This motion neither prejudges nor seeks to pre-empt the probe ordered by the President,” he said.Gagdi told lawmakers that the purported council relied on documents allegedly claiming it was established under a provision cited as Chapter N2117 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, but that records of the National Assembly showed no legislation creating such an institution.He noted that the closest reference was Chapter N117, which relates to the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, suggesting that the alleged council may have been attempting to duplicate an existing statutory body.“The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The lawmaker stressed that the House investigation was not intended to interfere with the court process.“This motion neither prejudges nor seeks to pre-empt the probe ordered by the President,” he said.Gagdi told lawmakers that the purported council relied on documents allegedly claiming it was established under a provision cited as Chapter N2117 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, but that records of the National Assembly showed no legislation creating such an institution.He noted that the closest reference was Chapter N117, which relates to the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, suggesting that the alleged council may have been attempting to duplicate an existing statutory body.“The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. “This motion neither prejudges nor seeks to pre-empt the probe ordered by the President,” he said.Gagdi told lawmakers that the purported council relied on documents allegedly claiming it was established under a provision cited as Chapter N2117 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, but that records of the National Assembly showed no legislation creating such an institution.He noted that the closest reference was Chapter N117, which relates to the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, suggesting that the alleged council may have been attempting to duplicate an existing statutory body.“The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. Gagdi told lawmakers that the purported council relied on documents allegedly claiming it was established under a provision cited as Chapter N2117 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, but that records of the National Assembly showed no legislation creating such an institution.He noted that the closest reference was Chapter N117, which relates to the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, suggesting that the alleged council may have been attempting to duplicate an existing statutory body.“The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. He noted that the closest reference was Chapter N117, which relates to the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, suggesting that the alleged council may have been attempting to duplicate an existing statutory body.“The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. “The nearest designation to this chapter is Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsification of purported instruments is apparent on the face of public statutory records,” he stated.The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The lawmaker raised concerns over reports that a provision of more than N1.3bn linked to the entity appeared in the 2026 budget framework, questioning how an organisation without a verifiable establishment law could pass through government budgetary processes.He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. He said, “The House observes that reports indicate that the purported provision in excess of N1.3bn attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 appropriation framework, raising fundamental questions of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment would enter a federal budget.”The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The Plateau lawmaker warned that the matter could expose weaknesses in Nigeria’s budget preparation and approval process, arguing that the alleged incident may not be an isolated case.He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. He continued, “The ease with which a single unestablished entity was processed through official processes suggests a systematic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are equally reflected in the past or current budget framework.”The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The lawmaker said the situation posed a threat to the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly over public funds.He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. He cited provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, and Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empower the legislature to oversee public expenditure and investigate matters relating to government finances.The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The House resolved that the ad hoc committee should trace the alleged budget provision from the executive proposal stage through legislative consideration and identify where the entry was introduced.The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The committee was also mandated to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to explain the verification process used in admitting new entities into the national budget.In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. In addition, the committee will verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies listed in the 2025 and 2026 appropriation frameworks against their legal instruments of establishment and receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies.The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The House directed the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm that no funds had been released and no warrant had been issued in respect of any provision linked to the alleged entity pending the conclusion of the investigation.Related NewsCleric decries failed campaign promises in NigeriaConstituency projects: Alleged funding suspension throws Reps into rowdy sessionState police: Nigeria’s fear is costing livesIt further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. It further resolved that the Budget Office should henceforth submit, alongside every appropriation bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other funded bodies, including their legal instruments of establishment.Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. Supporting the motion, Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Satomi Ahmad, described the issue as one that threatened the credibility of the nation’s democratic institutions and budgetary system.“Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. “Gagdi has brought in a very important issue, which we must confront with a very loud voice in this chamber because it has affected the very integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our budgetary process,” Ahmad said.The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, supported the investigation, disclosing that he had personally encountered the activities of operators of the alleged fake agency.The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The House mandated the committee to submit its findings within four weeks for further legislative action.The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The investigation comes amid renewed concerns over the verification of government agencies and beneficiaries captured in Nigeria’s annual budgets.Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. Under existing financial laws, only entities with recognised legal backing are expected to receive public funds through appropriation.The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, established by law, is the statutory agency responsible for promoting and coordinating investment activities in Nigeria.Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. Atiku demands independent probeFormer Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. Former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, rejected President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the alleged PFIPC, insisting that only an independent commission of inquiry can restore public confidence in the matter.Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. Atiku argued that the President’s directive, coming days after he issued a seven-day ultimatum demanding a probe of the alleged scandal, amounted to an admission that previous investigations by the Nigeria Police were inadequate.In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former vice president said the Presidency’s latest action had exposed contradictions in its earlier position that the matter had already been comprehensively investigated.“Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. “Only one week ago, the Presidency emphatically told Nigerians that the matter had already been investigated by the police following petitions from the Chief of Staff in October 2025; that the suspect had been arrested; that searches had been conducted; that documentary exhibits had been recovered; that bank accounts had been traced; that statements had been obtained; and that criminal charges had already been filed before the Federal High Court.“If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. “If all of that is true, what exactly is the ICPC expected to spend another 30 days investigating?“If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. “If the police investigation was comprehensive, another investigation is unnecessary.“If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. “If another investigation has become necessary, then the inevitable conclusion is that the earlier investigation was insufficient.“The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. “The President cannot simultaneously maintain both positions without contradicting his own government,” the statement read.Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. Recall that Tinubu directed the ICPC to investigate the activities surrounding the alleged PFIPC after reports emerged of individuals allegedly operating under the name of a presidential intervention body purportedly linked to the presidency.The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The directive followed growing public scrutiny and calls by opposition figures for a transparent investigation into the affair.However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. However, Atiku contended that the President’s instruction to investigate the “wider circumstances” surrounding the alleged body undermined the government’s earlier claim that the incident involved only one individual impersonating government officials.“That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. “That directive is, in itself, a repudiation of the earlier narrative that this was merely the handiwork of one alleged impostor.“The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. “The issue before Nigerians is no longer whether one individual allegedly forged documents.“The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. “The issue is how an organisation, the Presidency insists never existed, allegedly acquired office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, sought diplomatic recognition, reportedly conducted recruitment exercises, operated multiple bank accounts and projected the authority of government over an extended period.”The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The ADC presidential candidate also questioned the appointment of a senior presidency official, whose name he said had been publicly linked to the controversy, as chairman of the implementation committee on state police, arguing that such appointments could undermine public confidence in the investigation.