Beyond Letterheads: Why Enabling Acts Must Guide Public Investigations

By Abraham Amah

The testimony reportedly given by the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) in relation to an alleged fake federal agency has generated considerable public interest and has equally raised important questions about institutional due diligence in the verification of public records. One aspect that stands out is the reported reliance on a letterhead bearing the names of certain individuals as purported members of the institution’s governing board. This aspect deserves careful scrutiny because the existence and composition of the governing board of any federal institution are matters regulated by law rather than by the contents of official stationery.

In Nigeria’s system of public administration, every federal institution derives its legal existence, powers, functions, and governance structure from its enabling Act or other valid legal instrument establishing it. Consequently, the first point of reference in determining whether an institution has a governing board should always be its enabling law. A letterhead, regardless of how professionally prepared, cannot create legal authority or substitute for statutory provisions.

It is equally important to appreciate that not every federal agency is established with a governing board. Several federal agencies operate under the leadership of a Director-General, Executive Secretary, or Chief Executive Officer, while policy supervision is exercised through the appropriate supervising ministry and the Federal Government. By contrast, commissions, statutory corporations, authorities, and certain government-owned enterprises are specifically established with governing boards or governing councils whose composition and functions are expressly provided for by law.

Examples of institutions whose legal frameworks provide for governing boards include the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, and the Nigerian Ports Authority. Their enabling statutes or applicable governance frameworks clearly define the existence of such boards, the qualifications of members, and the appointing authority. This illustrates the importance of distinguishing between different categories of public institutions instead of assuming that every federal body necessarily has a governing board.

Against this background, it is unfortunate if the FRSC relied principally on a letterhead listing certain persons as board members without first determining whether the institution’s enabling Act even provided for the existence of a governing board. Due diligence would ordinarily require investigators to verify such a fundamental issue through the relevant legislation and official government records before attaching evidential weight to the contents of a letterhead.

Furthermore, where uncertainty exists regarding the legal status or governance structure of a federal institution, it would have been prudent to seek clarification from the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), which plays a central coordinating role in matters relating to the establishment of federal institutions, government appointments, and official administrative records. Such consultation would have strengthened the credibility of the verification process and minimized the possibility of avoidable procedural errors.

The reported inclusion of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as a purported member of the governing board of a federal institution should, by itself, have prompted heightened scrutiny. Under Nigeria’s constitutional and administrative framework, the President is ordinarily the appointing authority for members of governing boards of federal institutions where such boards are provided for by law. Consequently, a document suggesting that the President himself serves as a board member of an ordinary federal institution would reasonably call for immediate verification rather than acceptance at face value.

If the reported facts accurately reflect what occurred, they raise legitimate concerns about compliance with established protocols of institutional verification. Public institutions entrusted with investigative or enforcement responsibilities are expected to apply the highest standards of diligence, objectivity, and legal verification before reaching conclusions. Verification should extend beyond the appearance of official documents to the statutory foundations upon which governmental institutions are created and governed.

Ultimately, this matter underscores a broader lesson for public administration in Nigeria. Institutional credibility is strengthened when investigations are anchored on enabling statutes, official government records, and established administrative procedures rather than assumptions drawn from documents whose legal authenticity or authority has not been independently confirmed. Adherence to due process, respect for statutory governance frameworks, and meticulous verification remain indispensable to preserving public confidence in governmental institutions and ensuring that justice is not only done but is manifestly seen to be done.

Elder Amah, a frequent commentator on national  issues writes from Umuahia, Abia State.