Ponarejeno pisemno pismo, uporabljeno za ustvarjanje lažne agencije, razkriva ACT-General

The Accountant-General of the Federation, Shamseldeen Ogunjimi, testified on Monday that a forged letter purporting to come from the State House enabled the creation of a non-existent agency known as the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC). The letter, which bore a State House reference number, was used to request the establishment of an administrative code for the organization, leading the Office of the Accountant-General to process the request and issue an approval. Subsequent investigations confirmed that the letter was never issued by the State House, revealing a deliberate attempt to mislead government agencies into recognizing a fake entity. The incident unfolded during the House of Representatives' Ad Hoc Committee investigation into the operations of the PFIPC. According to Ogunjimi, the Treasury first received correspondence related to the organization in November 2024. A letter dated 7 November 2024, addressed to the Treasury and referencing the State House, requested the creation of an administrative code for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council, aimed at facilitating budgeting, accounting, and financial reporting. Following standard administrative protocols, the Office of the Accountant-General reviewed the request, approved the creation of the code, and communicated the decision to the State House, with a copy sent to the Office of the Auditor-General of the Federation (OAuGF). In the weeks that followed, the Office of the Accountant-General received multiple additional requests from the purported council. These included applications for self-accounting status, the deployment of personnel, the opening of a Treasury Single Account (TSA) and domiciliary accounts, and funding approvals. Despite processing some of these administrative requests, Ogunjimi emphasized that no government funds were ever released to the organization. He noted that no money was allocated under categories such as salaries, overhead, capital, or any form of intervention or special allocation. Furthermore, Ogunjimi disclosed that the council had requested an establishment grant of ₦27.4 billion, but the request was denied due to the absence of a corresponding budgetary provision. Although the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) opened two domiciliary accounts for the organization to receive inflows, these accounts remained inactive as the council failed to meet the necessary regulatory conditions for their activation. Lawmakers raised concerns about how the purported agency managed to bypass bureaucratic checks and operate without detection. In response, Ogunjimi revealed that the Treasury had acted based on a document it believed to be authentic. “The letter that was received by the Treasury was respectfully addressed as coming from the State House. That letter was never issued by the State House,” he stated, confirming that the correspondence had been forged. This admission deepened the committee's suspicions that a hijacked State House letter had been used to mislead government institutions into processing requests for an organization that did not exist. The committee also scrutinized how civil servants originally assigned to the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser to the President ended up working for the PFIPC without the knowledge of the Office of the Accountant-General. Ogunjimi explained that two officers, who had been deployed to the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser in 2010 and 2013, continued to work there even after the alleged takeover by the new council. He noted that the Office of the Accountant-General was never officially informed of this transition, nor were the staff notified that the office had been renamed or taken over. As far as Ogunjimi was aware, the Treasury was dealing with a new agency rather than the existing Office of the Chief Economic Adviser. Ogunjimi further revealed that when the PFIPC later requested the deployment of five additional staff members, the Treasury approved only three, citing concerns about the legitimacy of the organization. This action underscored the growing skepticism among officials regarding the authenticity of the council and its operations. The ongoing investigation continues to examine the extent of the deception and the potential implications for governance and accountability.