A Nigerian parliamentary committee investigating the controversial Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has cleared Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, of any involvement in the organization. The committee, led by Rep. Yusuf Adamu Gagdi, found that the PFIPC was not lawfully established by the federal government and that documents used to legitimize it were forged or altered. Key findings include a fabricated appointment letter for Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi as Director-General, which was not issued by Gbajabiamila or the presidency. The committee noted discrepancies in the letterhead and reference numbers, indicating the document was falsified. Additionally, the report states that Gbajabiamila took proactive measures to investigate the PFIPC after being alerted by the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, contacting multiple security and investigative agencies within a day.
The House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee investigating the alleged establishment of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has released an interim report revealing that the organization operated without legal authorization and that key documents used to legitimize it were forged. The report, presented in Abuja on Wednesday, identified 58 bank accounts linked to Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, who claimed to be the council's director-general. The committee cleared Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, of involvement in the scheme, stating there was no evidence connecting him to the organization's creation or operations. The investigation began after a motion introduced by committee chair Rep. Yusuf Adamu Gagdi on July 8, following concerns raised by lawmakers about the inclusion of the PFIPC in the 2026 Appropriation Act. A review of the act revealed an allocation of about ₦1.3 billion to the PFIPC under the presidency. The committee was also tasked with examining a reported ₦27.4 billion take-off grant allegedly tied to the council. Preliminary findings suggest the committee is still determining whether any funds were actually released to the organization. Among the key discoveries was a forged appointment letter purporting to authorize Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi as the director-general of the PFIPC. The document supposedly bore the signature and authority of Femi Gbajabiamila. However, evidence obtained from the State House contradicted this, confirming that no such appointment was made or approved by the Presidency. The committee noted that the letterhead was not genuine and that the reference number did not conform to the official referencing system of the Presidency. These discrepancies led the committee to conclude that the document was fabricated and falsely attributed to the Presidency. In addition to the forged appointment letter, the committee uncovered a purported Presidential Executive Order No. 5, dated February 24, 2026, which was allegedly used to provide legal authority for the PFIPC. Lawmakers concluded that the document was not an authentic Executive Order and was not issued through proper presidential channels. The committee emphasized that the organization operated under multiple names, including the Presidential Economic Advisory Council, and that these name changes further undermined its legitimacy. The committee also found that approximately 39 individuals were presented as employees of the PFIPC, raising questions about the authenticity of their roles. Through the Bank Verification Number (BVN) and other identifying details, the committee traced these individuals to 58 bank accounts linked to Prince Adeyemi. This suggests a potential network of financial activity connected to the organization, though the exact nature and extent remain under scrutiny. The investigation also revealed that the PFIPC managed to secure a physical office within the Federal Secretariat, obtain official-looking number plates, and establish relationships with several government institutions. Despite these appearances of legitimacy, the committee found no valid Act of the National Assembly, gazetted enactment, presidential executive order, or other lawful authority establishing the PFIPC. None of the government institutions consulted during the inquiry could produce authentic records proving the organization's creation or approval by any competent authority. Femi Gbajabiamila, the subject of allegations related to the PFIPC, was found to have taken proactive measures upon being alerted to the situation. Following an alert from the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) regarding suspected fraudulent activities and misuse of institutional resources, Gbajabiamila communicated with the Nigeria Police Force, Office of the National Security Adviser, Department of State Services (DSS), and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). He also initiated administrative verification through relevant government bodies. When further concerns arose, particularly around a proposed World Investment Summit, Gbajabiamila issued additional directives seeking further investigation and appropriate action. The committee concluded that the documentary evidence before it does not support the claim that Gbajabiamila authorized, approved, established, or participated in the activities of the PFIPC. Instead, the evidence shows that he took repeated steps to ensure investigation, institutional verification, and administrative action. The committee expressed commendation for the timely interventions undertaken by Gbajabiamila whenever the matter was formally brought to his attention.
Go to the primary sources (3)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
A Nigerian parliamentary committee investigating the controversial Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has cleared Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, of any involvement in the organization. The committee, led by Rep. Yusuf Adamu Gagdi, found that the PFIPC was not lawfully established by the federal government and that documents used to legitimize it were forged or altered. Key findings include a fabricated appointment letter for Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi as Director-General, which was not issued by Gbajabiamila or the presidency. The committee noted discrepancies in the letterhead and reference numbers, indicating the document was falsified. Additionally, the report states that Gbajabiamila took proactive measures to investigate the PFIPC after being alerted by the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, contacting multiple security and investigative agencies within a day.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the committee's findings, emphasizing both the forgery of documents and Gbajabiamila's actions to address the issue. There is no overt ideological slant in the framing of the story, and the focus remains on factual findings rather than advocacy for any side
Why factuality (85): This article provides detailed and accurate information about the committee's findings, including the forgery of documents, the lack of legal establishment of PFIPC, and the exoneration of Gbajabiamila. It aligns closely with the primary source material and includes specific references to the State
Why objectivity (90): The article presents the facts in a clear and neutral manner, focusing on the committee's findings without injecting personal opinion or emotional language. It avoids taking sides and sticks to the reported actions of the committee.
A parliamentary committee in Nigeria investigated claims surrounding the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), uncovering alleged forgery and alteration of presidential and legislative documents meant to legitimize the organization. The committee discovered approximately 58 bank accounts linked to Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, who was presented as the Director-General of the PFIPC, along with a potential ₦400 million financial transaction under scrutiny. Despite these findings, the committee cleared Femi Gbajabiamila, the Chief of Staff to the President, of any involvement in establishing or authorizing the PFIPC. Evidence suggested that the documents purporting to authorize Adeyemi's appointment were fabricated and not issued by the Presidency. Gbajabiamila was noted to have promptly alerted multiple government agencies upon learning of possible fraud.
Bias read (Center): The article presents findings from a parliamentary committee investigating alleged fraud related to a government entity. It provides balanced information, detailing both the accusations against the PFIPC and the exoneration of Femi Gbajabiamila. There is no evident bias in the presentation of facts,
Why factuality (80): The article accurately summarizes the committee's findings, including the forgery of documents, the discovery of 58 bank accounts, and the exoneration of Gbajabiamila. It provides sufficient detail but omits some specifics present in the first article, such as the mention of 39 individuals presented
Why objectivity (88): The article remains largely objective, presenting the committee's findings without apparent bias. It uses descriptive language but avoids strong emotive terms. The structure is neutral, focusing on the process and outcomes of the investigation.
Yusuf Gagdi, chairman of the House of Representatives' ad hoc committee investigating the alleged creation and operation of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), stated that the panel did not invite or interrogate Femi Gbajabiamila, the president's chief of staff, despite documents linking him to the agency. The committee's focus was on determining how an agency without a clear legal foundation allegedly became part of the federal government's systems. Gagdi emphasized that the investigation aimed to uncover the origins and legal basis of the PFIPC, not solely target individuals named in related documents. The committee invited the public and institutions to submit information, but Gbajabiamila was not directly summoned. Meanwhile, Gbajabiamila has denied allegations of wrongdoing and filed a defamation lawsuit against the person who made the claims.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the committee's explanation for not targeting Gbajabiamila and the accusations against him, including his denial and legal action. There is no overtly biased language or selective sourcing that favors one side over the other. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the due
Why factuality (78): The article references the House of Representatives' role in investigating the PFIPC and explains the committee's mandate. It cites specific actions taken by the committee, including clearing Femi Gbajabiamila and accusing the COS of financial misconduct. These details align with the primary source
Why objectivity (65): The article presents the allegations against the Chief of Staff in a somewhat confrontational manner, using phrases like 'abusing and exploiting his office' and mentions a defamation lawsuit. While it reports facts, the tone suggests some level of bias towards the accused, which affects its objectiv
The House of Representatives' ad hoc committee investigating the alleged creation of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has released an interim report revealing an extensive scheme involving the forgery of presidential documents, the alteration of a National Assembly Act, and the unauthorized use of high-ranking government officials' names to legitimize the organization. The committee discovered 58 bank accounts linked to Adeniyi Adeyemi, who claimed to be the director-general of the PFIPC. The probe found no legal basis for the PFIPC's existence, as no valid legislation, executive orders, or approvals from relevant authorities were produced. The committee emphasized that its findings are preliminary and do not represent a final conclusion.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual findings from an official parliamentary committee investigation without overtly favoring any political side. It reports on the discovery of potential illegal activities but does not frame them with ideological bias. The content remains neutral in tone, focusing on the un
Why factuality (75): The article accurately reports the findings of the House of Representatives' ad hoc committee regarding the PFIPC probe, including the discovery of 58 bank accounts linked to Adeyemi and the clearance of Gbajabiamila. However, it lacks specific details about the nature of the 'elaborate scheme' and
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a relatively neutral tone, presenting the committee's findings without overt bias. It clearly states that the findings are preliminary and not final decisions, avoiding definitive conclusions. However, phrases like 'elaborate scheme' may carry some interpretive weight.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
NG
