Fake Agency Probe: Businessman tells Reps how he paid N400m for PFIPC contract

A storm has brewed around the ongoing investigation into the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), as members of the House of Representatives ad hoc committee face mounting criticism over the conduct of its chairman, Yusuf Gagdi. With the panel preparing to submit its final report to the House in plenary within the next few weeks, tensions have escalated over allegations of procedural irregularities and perceived bias in the inquiry. The controversy intensified after a House member publicly challenged the decision to appoint Gagdi as the head of the probe. According to the member, who wished to remain anonymous, it was Gagdi himself who introduced the motion calling for an investigation into the PFIPC. He questioned the ethics of allowing the individual who initiated the probe to also serve as its leader, arguing that such a move deviates from established conventions. The member noted that in any formal investigation, there is typically a complainant and a respondent, suggesting that the chief of staff to the president, Femi Gbajabiamila, should have been invited to provide statements given his prior correspondence with the police regarding the detained individual. Further concerns emerged over the credibility of evidence presented during the inquiry. The House member pointed out discrepancies in the signatures of Gbajabiamila found in documents submitted to the committee compared to the official appointment letter issued to Adeyemi. He highlighted that high-ranking individuals often use multiple signatures, implying that the panel's focus on this detail might be misleading. Additionally, the member criticized the panel for conducting what he described as a one-sided investigation, despite assurances that the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission would handle the legal aspects. During a recent sitting, Gagdi reportedly dominated the proceedings, dismissing a fellow panel member’s attempt to raise a critical question. These actions have fueled speculation about the impartiality of the investigation. On another occasion, Gagdi failed to appear at a scheduled press briefing without prior notice, raising further doubts about transparency and accountability. Political figures have voiced their expectations for a thorough examination of the PFIPC scandal. Anthony Sani, a prominent figure in the ruling party and former head of the Arewa Consultative Forum, emphasized that Nigerians expect a comprehensive probe that includes all parties implicated in the affair. He specifically called attention to the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of Dolapo Tanimola, the alleged intermediary linked to the case, urging the panel to explore all possible angles. Ibrahim Rafsanjani, executive director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, expressed broader concerns about the implications of the PFIPC scandal. He argued that the case raises serious questions about the integrity of Nigeria’s public institutions, including its budgeting processes, security structures, and administrative systems. Rafsanjani stated that the current level of scrutiny does not meet the standards required for such a significant legislative inquiry, stressing that the investigation must extend beyond verifying the authenticity of documents or the legality of the PFIPC’s establishment. As the committee moves closer to delivering its findings, the pressure mounts for a transparent and impartial process. The upcoming report will likely shape public perception of both the PFIPC and the mechanisms in place to hold officials accountable. The outcome of the inquiry could influence future governance practices and the trust citizens place in institutional oversight.