Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, has called on the Federal Government to provide a comprehensive and transparent account of the controversy surrounding the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), insisting that the Presidency’s explanation has failed to address critical questions troubling Nigerians.
Speaking during an interview on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, Ogun State, on Friday, Falana said the matter had exposed Nigeria to public embarrassment and could not be resolved with what he described as an inadequate official response.
“Unfortunately, I think there is more to this matter than meets the eye. Nigerians have not been given the full facts,” Falana said.
“I’ve read Mr. Bayo Onanuga speaking for the Presidency. To say it very mildly, the country has been exposed to unprecedented ridicule. The government must appreciate that they are dealing with civilised people, so the government must come out more clearly on this matter.”
The senior advocate questioned how an agency the Presidency insists does not exist could allegedly secure a place in the 2026 Appropriation Act, operate from the Federal Secretariat, maintain accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), and reportedly have about 300 civil servants deployed to it.
“How did an agency that is not created by law find its way into the Appropriation Act of Nigeria? How did that body get an office in the Federal Secretariat? How did that body successfully open accounts in the Central Bank of Nigeria? How did the Head of Service post about 300 staff to that office?” he asked.
Falana argued that the controversy extends beyond the criminal prosecution of the alleged promoter of the council, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, insisting that several government institutions must explain their roles.
According to him, the National Assembly also owes Nigerians answers over the reported inclusion of the council in the federal budget.
“You cannot have an agency that is not created by law in the budget of a country. You cannot put an agency that is unknown to law in the Appropriation Act. The National Assembly members will have to explain who authorised them to insert the body into the budget,” he said.
Citing Section 81 of the Constitution, Falana noted that appropriation bills originate from the Executive before being transmitted to the legislature, making it necessary for the government to explain how the alleged agency found its way into the approved budget.
He dismissed the Presidency’s explanation as insufficient, saying it left “gaping holes” that only an independent investigation could resolve.
“If this is a conman that can con the Presidency into issuing a letter of appointment, con the Central Bank into opening accounts, con the National Assembly into inserting the agency into the budget, I think the government is kidding,” he stated.
Falana also called for an independent investigation into the alleged role of the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, urging him to temporarily step aside in the interest of transparency.
“The government has a duty to ask Mr. Gbajabiamila to step aside to allow for a full investigation in the interest of the country and even in his own interest,” he said.
While supporting the ongoing prosecution of Adeyemi, Falana maintained that the criminal trial alone would not answer broader institutional questions surrounding the alleged council.
“The law must be allowed to take its course. But there are issues that are not going to come up in court. The court is not going to tell us who opened an account in the Central Bank. The court is not going to tell us who inserted the agency into the budget or why it was signed by the President,” he added.
He urged the Federal Government to reopen its inquiry, involve all relevant agencies, and issue a more detailed explanation capable of restoring public confidence.
“The government will have to revisit the matter, go back to the drawing board and issue another statement that will be acceptable to Nigerians by assuring them that there is no cover-up in this matter,” Falana said.
The controversy began after the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President publicly disowned the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) and its alleged Director-General, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, describing the council as non-existent and its promoter as an impostor.
The Presidency later disclosed that security agencies had been petitioned in October 2025 after reports that the council was operating from the Federal Secretariat while allegedly issuing forged appointment letters and presenting itself as a federal agency.
Police subsequently arrested Adeyemi alongside two others on charges bordering on forgery, impersonation and obtaining by false pretence.
The matter, however, escalated after documents from the 2026 Appropriation Act surfaced showing a budgetary allocation of about ₦1.3 billion for an entity listed as the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, raising fresh concerns over the integrity of Nigeria’s budget process.
Adeyemi has since denied allegations of forgery, insisting that the council maintained offices within the Federal Secretariat, operated accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria, and had personnel deployed through the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.
The controversy has attracted widespread reactions from opposition politicians, legal experts, civil society organisations and members of the public, with many demanding an independent investigation into how a council the Presidency insists never existed allegedly functioned within the structures of the Federal Government.
