How fake agency scandal exposed cracks in lawmakers’ oversight function

….Accountant-general account contradicts Presidency

For nearly two years, Adeniyi Adeyemi moved freely through the corridors of power in Abuja. Presenting himself as the director-general of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) and the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC), he attended official events, met ambassadors, held conferences and interacted with senior government officials.

His engagements extended to the National Assembly, where committees corresponded with him and invited him to international programmes.

His organisation also found its way into Nigeria’s 2026 Appropriation Act with a budget of N1.3 billion under the Presidency.

Today, however, the Presidency insists the agency never existed.

The contradiction has transformed what initially appeared to be a criminal case into a broader debate about the effectiveness of Nigeria’s oversight institutions, particularly the National Assembly, whose constitutional responsibility includes scrutinising executive proposals and safeguarding public resources.

For governance experts, the bigger issue is no longer whether Adeyemi forged documents, a matter already before the court, but how an agency now described by the Presidency as fictitious successfully navigated multiple layers of government without triggering institutional red flags.

The controversy has become even more significant following recent comments by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that about two percent of Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in public expenditure was not properly reported.

Together, the developments have intensified concerns over transparency, legislative scrutiny and public financial management.

“The National Assembly is not expected to merely approve what comes from the Executive; it has a constitutional obligation to interrogate proposals before appropriating public funds. If an agency later described as non-existent appeared in the Appropriation Act, it suggests that due diligence may have been inadequate somewhere along the budget process,” Adeola Ibrahim, a political scientist, said.

The N1.3bn question

Perhaps the biggest mystery is how a non-existent agency found its way into the country’s budget.

The 2026 Appropriation Act, spanning 2,790 pages, lists the Presidential Economic Advisory Council and the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council on page four under the Presidency.

The agency was allocated N1.3 billion under Budget Code 0111062001. The breakdown includes N802.9 million for personnel, N200 million for overhead and N300 million for capital expenditure.

Its inclusion suggests the agency passed through Nigeria’s elaborate budget process. Ordinarily, budget estimates are first reviewed by the Federal Executive Council before the Budget Office consolidates submissions from Ministries, Departments and Agencies.

The proposals are then presented to the National Assembly by the president, where committees conduct budget defence sessions and question agency heads before making recommendations.

Throughout the 2026 budget process, the Senate Committee on Appropriations repeatedly assured Nigerians that every proposal would undergo rigorous scrutiny.

Solomon Adeola, Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, had warned: “Let me emphasise that all MDAs must appear before their respective committees to defend their budget proposals. Where MDAs fail to justify their estimates, the Committee on Appropriations will recommend reallocation.”

Despite that assurance, lawmakers eventually passed a budget containing an allocation for an agency the Presidency now says was fictitious.

That contradiction has become one of the strongest arguments for critics who describe the current National Assembly as overly accommodating of the Executive.

More than a budget line

controversy extends beyond public finance. BusinessDay findings show that Adeyemi’s interactions with the National Assembly were neither isolated nor informal.

In July 2025, he met with Benjamin Kalu, the deputy speaker of the House of Representatives. Media reports at the time described the meeting as part of efforts to “align policy ambition and legislative resolve.”

Official correspondence obtained by BusinessDay also shows that the House Committee on Treaties, Protocols and Agreements invited the PFIPC Director-General to participate in an Executive Study Exchange on Institutional Excellence in Treaty Governance in Casablanca, Morocco.

The committee described the programme as “a strategic intervention aimed at strengthening Nigeria’s federal and state capacities in treaty negotiation, domestication, and compliance.”

The Senate Committee on Anti-Corruption and Financial Crimes also nominated Adeyemi for a study exchange programme on institutional reform in London.

For analysts, these engagements suggest the agency was recognised by multiple government institutions long before the Presidency publicly disowned it. They argue that such official interactions should ordinarily have prompted verification of the agency’s legal status.

“This case should not be viewed only as an alleged fraud. It is also an institutional governance issue. Several public institutions reportedly interacted with the organisation before questions were raised. That points to weaknesses in inter-agency verification and administrative controls,” a public affairs analyst said.

A legislature under growing criticism

The PFIPC controversy is unfolding against a backdrop of mounting criticism of the 10th National Assembly. Since its inauguration, lawmakers have faced accusations of failing to exercise robust oversight over the Executive.

Critics frequently cite the speedy approval of executive loan requests, recurring allegations of budget padding and limited resistance to major fiscal proposals.

The discovery that lawmakers approved funding for an agency now described as fictitious has intensified those concerns.

For many governance advocates, it illustrates what they describe as a weakening legislature that increasingly endorses executive proposals with limited interrogation.

Although there is no evidence that lawmakers knowingly appropriated funds for a fictitious institution, analysts argue that the incident exposes deficiencies in the budget review process.

The IMF warning

The debate has gained additional significance following comments by the International Monetary Fund.

Speaking recently in Lagos, Christian Ebeke, IMF resident representative for Nigeria, said: “So far we think that there are about two percent of GDP of expenditure that were not reported, that should be reported and should be recorded, so that this statistical discrepancy will disappear.”

The estimate, equivalent to more than N8 trillion, has reignited debate over transparency in Nigeria’s public finances.

Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, linked the IMF’s observation to concerns about legislative oversight.

“The IMF now reveals that about N8.83 trillion in expenditure undertaken in 2025 is not reflected in the budget. This expenditure is not budgeted and is therefore not under legislative oversight or administrative scrutiny. This is horrible,” he said.

According to Obi, the amount exceeds 35 percent of Nigeria’s capital expenditure budget and is larger than the combined allocations for education and health.

“It is more than the entire combined budget for education (N3.52 trillion) and health (N2.38 trillion),” he said.

The Federal Government has rejected that interpretation. Taiwo Oyedele, minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, argued that the public debate misrepresented both the IMF’s comments and Nigeria’s fiscal framework.

“The federal government does not operate a ‘shadow budget’ or expend public funds outside the constitutional and statutory framework established for public finance,” he said.

He added: “It is inaccurate to suggest that trillions of naira have been secretly spent outside legislative approval.”

According to Oyedele, all federal expenditure is backed by Appropriation Acts, supplementary budgets or statutory provisions approved by the National Assembly.

More questions than answers

The PFIPC affair has produced a series of contradictions across government institutions. While the Presidency says the agency never existed, official documents show government offices processed its correspondence.

While the Presidency said police established that Adeyemi opened a CBN account using forged documents, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation later clarified that although an application to open an account was initiated, the process was never completed because the required documentation was not submitted.

Similarly, although the agency appeared in the 2026 budget, government officials maintain that it never received any public funds. Each clarification has answered some questions while creating new ones.

How did an agency described as fictitious survive the scrutiny of the Executive, the Budget Office and the National Assembly?

Who defended its budget before lawmakers? How did parliamentary committees correspond with and invite its leadership to official programmes?

And why did no institution question its legitimacy until security agencies began investigating it?

“One responsibility of the legislature is to reduce information asymmetry between the Executive and the public through oversight. Incidents like this often lead citizens to question whether Parliament is exercising sufficient independence in reviewing executive proposals,” Ibrahim, earlier quoted, said.

As the criminal case against Adeyemi proceeds, these institutional questions are likely to remain at the centre of public debate.

For many analysts, the scandal is no longer simply about one man’s alleged deception. Rather, they argue, it raises broader questions about whether the legislature is fulfilling its constitutional responsibility to scrutinise executive actions, protect public resources and hold government institutions accountable.