‘Fake’ agency DG’s video challenging Gbajabiamila resurfaces, as PFIPC sign remains

The resurfacing of a video featuring the purported Director-General of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) challenging the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, has intensified scrutiny over the integrity of Nigeria's budget process. Despite the Presidency declaring PFIPC a "fictitious" agency without legal backing, it was allocated approximately N1.3 billion in the 2026 Appropriation Act. This controversy highlights significant legal and institutional failures, raising questions about how an unestablished entity could secure public funds and operate within government circles. President Bola Tinubu has since ordered a comprehensive investigation by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) into the matter, with calls for a judicial inquiry to address the systemic weaknesses exposed.

A recent video featuring Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, who claims to be the Director-General of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), has resurfaced, directly challenging the Presidency's assertion that the agency is "fake" and non-existent. This challenge is particularly potent given that the PFIPC, despite official denials of its legitimacy, was reportedly allocated approximately N1.3 billion in the 2026 Appropriation Act. The video, which directly questions the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, on how a fictitious entity could be included in the national budget, has ignited a nationwide debate on fiscal transparency, accountability, and the integrity of Nigeria's public institutions.

This development transcends mere political discourse, delving deep into fundamental questions of administrative law, constitutional governance, and public finance management in Nigeria. The inclusion of a purportedly non-existent agency in the national budget raises serious concerns about the robustness of the budgetary process, the efficacy of legislative oversight, and the potential for widespread fraud within the federal government. For legal practitioners, this scenario presents a critical case study on the establishment of public bodies, the appropriation of public funds, and the legal ramifications of operating outside established statutory frameworks.

This article aims to dissect the legal implications of the PFIPC scandal, examining the statutory and constitutional provisions governing the establishment of government agencies and the national budget process. It will analyze the contradictions inherent in the Presidency's denial versus the agency's budgetary allocation, the roles and responsibilities of key government officials, and the broader implications for legal practice and institutional reforms in Nigeria.

The establishment and operation of government agencies in Nigeria are strictly governed by constitutional and statutory provisions, designed to ensure legality, accountability, and proper use of public resources. Typically, a federal government agency derives its legal authority from an Act of the National Assembly. While executive orders can sometimes establish bodies, their powers are often limited without legislative backing. The process usually involves identifying a national need, developing a policy proposal, securing approval from the Federal Executive Council (FEC), and subsequently drafting and enacting an enabling law through the National Assembly.

The national budget process in Nigeria is primarily regulated by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007. Sections 80 to 84 of the Constitution outline a sequenced framework for public expenditure: the President prepares and lays budget estimates before the National Assembly, which then considers and authorizes expenditure through an Appropriation Act. The National Assembly possesses the constitutional power to alter budget estimates presented by the President, a position affirmed by judicial pronouncements such as in *Falana v. The President, Federal Republic of Nigeria & 3 Ors*. Once passed by both chambers of the National Assembly and assented to by the President, the Appropriation Bill becomes law, known as the Appropriation Act, which legally binds the Executive in implementing government projects and programmes.

Crucially, the legal framework mandates that all public expenditure must be supported by lawful appropriation or other constitutional/statutory charges. The Office of the Chief of Staff to the President, while pivotal in administrative coordination, does not possess budgetary authority to propose, allocate, or include agencies in the annual budget. This power rests solely with the Executive as a whole, specifically through the Federal Ministry of Finance, the Budget Office of the Federation, and ultimately, the President. Any agency seeking budgetary allocation must have an enabling law, a mandate approved by the FEC, and a budget code issued by the relevant authorities, ensuring a multi-layered scrutiny process before inclusion in the Appropriation Bill.

The PFIPC scandal exposes a glaring contradiction within Nigeria's governance framework: an entity officially declared "fictitious" by the Presidency was nonetheless allocated approximately N1.3 billion in the 2026 Appropriation Act. This allocation, covering personnel, overhead, and capital expenditure, directly challenges the Presidency's narrative that the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) was never established by the Federal Government and has no basis in any law or executive approval. The alleged Director-General, Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, is currently facing an eight-count charge of forgery, impersonation, and operating a fictitious government agency, further underscoring the criminal dimension of the matter.

The legal breaches are manifold. For an agency to receive public funds, it must have an enabling law or a clear presidential instrument establishing it, neither of which PFIPC reportedly possesses. The inclusion of such an entity in the Appropriation Act suggests a breakdown in the rigorous multi-stage budget preparation and legislative scrutiny process, which involves technical drafting, executive coordination, ministerial inputs, Budget Office review, and final legislative approval. Questions abound as to how references to a non-existent agency entered official records and passed through these layers without detection, implying a significant systemic vulnerability.

The allegations by Adeyemi against the Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, regarding bribery and involvement in the agency's establishment, have been vehemently denied by the Presidency. Legally, the Chief of Staff's role is primarily advisory and administrative, without direct budgetary authority. Therefore, the claim that Gbajabiamila "included" an agency in the budget would imply an act beyond his constitutional and statutory powers. Gbajabiamila's office maintains that he initiated a police and DSS investigation into PFIPC when concerns arose, suggesting an attempt to address the fraud.

However, the National Assembly's response has also drawn criticism. While the Senate acknowledged the budgetary allocation to PFIPC in the 2026 Appropriation Act, it declined to intervene, citing the absence of a formal petition and the matter being sub judice. This stance raises concerns about the effectiveness of legislative oversight, particularly given the National Assembly's constitutional mandate under Sections 80 and 81 of the 1999 Constitution to ensure accountability in public finance. The argument that it is not the National Assembly's duty to conduct security checks on appointees overlooks the broader responsibility to scrutinize budget proposals for legality and propriety.

The scandal has prompted President Tinubu to direct the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to investigate the activities of PFIPC, including the conduct of individuals, collaborators, and institutional weaknesses that enabled its apparent operation. This investigation is critical, but many stakeholders, including former Secretary to the Government of the Federation Babachir Lawal, have called for a more robust judicial inquiry, arguing that the controversy points to deep institutional failures rather than isolated criminal acts. The alleged disbursement of a N27.5 billion "take-off grant" to the agency, reportedly outside the budget, further underscores the need for a comprehensive and independent probe into the entire financial ecosystem surrounding this fictitious entity.

The PFIPC scandal represents a profound challenge to the principles of good governance, fiscal transparency, and the rule of law in Nigeria. The inclusion of a purportedly fictitious agency with a substantial allocation in the national budget, coupled with allegations of high-level corruption and institutional complicity, demands an unwavering commitment to accountability. The ongoing ICPC investigation is a crucial first step, but its findings must be thorough, transparent, and lead to decisive action against all culpable parties, irrespective of their position.

For legal practitioners, this case highlights the imperative of rigorous due diligence in all dealings with government entities and the critical need for vigilance in scrutinizing public documents, particularly appropriation acts. It underscores the importance of advocating for stronger institutional safeguards, clearer legal frameworks for agency establishment, and enhanced legislative oversight mechanisms to prevent similar abuses. The integrity of Nigeria's budget process and, by extension, public trust in government, hinges on a comprehensive and impartial resolution of this controversy, paving the way for systemic reforms that reinforce constitutionalism and fiscal discipline.