By Abraham Amah
The controversy surrounding the alleged fake presidential agency has moved beyond the personality of Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew and the denial issued by the Presidency. It has now become a national integrity test. The Presidency says the so-called Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council cum Presidential Economic Advisory Council is fictitious, and that Adeyemi allegedly forged documents, impersonated a government appointee, and opened a CBN account by misleading the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation. It also states that no government money was transferred into the account. But even this official explanation raises deeper questions than it answers.
If the agency was fake, who gave it address, access, administrative space and bureaucratic appearance? Reports say Adeyemi allegedly operated from an office at the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja, where he reportedly held meetings while presenting himself as a government official. That single fact, if fully established, should disturb every serious Nigerian. A fake agency operating from a federal government environment is not ordinary fraud. It suggests possible institutional negligence, internal compromise, weak verification, or the frightening possibility that unofficial actors can walk into the corridors of government and wear the garments of authority without immediate detection.
The first probe must therefore determine the physical and administrative identity of this alleged agency. Where exactly was its office located? Who allocated the office? Was there an official tenancy, room allocation, access pass, security clearance, signage, letterhead, staff register, utility record or visitor log? Which ministry, department or agency controlled the premises? Who approved the use of the office? Were cleaners, drivers, clerks, protocol officers, security personnel or dispatch riders attached to it? Were any serving federal civil servants deployed, seconded, borrowed, paid or informally instructed to work with it? If yes, by whom and under what authority?
The second probe must focus on personnel and payroll records. If this council had people parading as staff, Nigerians deserve to know whether any of them were genuine federal workers. Were names captured on IPPIS or any personnel platform? Were allowances processed? Were duty tour allowances, local travel claims, foreign mission requests, office imprests, procurement memos or consultancy fees prepared in the name of the alleged agency? If the Presidency insists that the agency does not exist, then every name connected to it must be exposed, not necessarily for public humiliation, but for institutional accountability.
The third probe must interrogate the budget trail. The most embarrassing part of the scandal is the report that a body described as non-existent by the Presidency allegedly appeared in the 2026 Appropriation Act with a ₦1.3 billion allocation. Other reporting has also noted public concern over the budgetary provisions linked to the disputed council, with legal voices calling for an independent probe rather than executive self-clearance. If a non-existent agency can find space in a national budget, then the issue is not just forgery; it is budgetary contamination.
The National Assembly, especially the Senate and House Committees on Appropriation, must explain how such an entry passed through scrutiny. Was there a budget defence? Who appeared for the agency? Which committee handled the line item? Was the agency listed under the Presidency, SGF, Foreign Affairs, Finance, Budget and Economic Planning, or any other institutional head? Was its enabling law requested? Was its establishment circular verified? Was its mandate cross-checked against the official list of federal ministries, departments and agencies? If nobody appeared to defend the budget, why was the allocation approved? If somebody appeared, under whose authority did that person appear?
The fourth probe must examine the relationship with the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation. No presidential council or federal intervention body should exist outside the knowledge of the SGF’s office. The SGF is central to the coordination of federal government structures, committees, councils, boards and special agencies. Therefore, the investigation must determine whether any file ever existed in the SGF’s office for this alleged council. Was any establishment memo processed? Was any appointment routed through the SGF? Was any inauguration planned? Was any circular issued? Was any inter-ministerial correspondence exchanged? If the answer is no, then the Budget Office and National Assembly must explain how a structure unknown to the SGF found its way into public finance records.
The fifth probe must focus on the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation. The Presidency itself has said the police found that Adeyemi allegedly opened a CBN account by misleading the Office of the Accountant-General, while also stating that no public funds were transferred into the account. That explanation is important, but it must be independently verified. Who processed the account opening request? What documents were submitted? Who certified them? What due diligence was carried out? Was there a letter from the Presidency, SGF, Budget Office or Ministry of Finance? Was the account captured on TSA? Was it active, dormant, restricted or transactional? Were any inflows attempted? Were any payment mandates raised and blocked?
The sixth probe must bring in the Auditor-General for the Federation. This is not only a police matter; it is also a public accounts matter. The Auditor-General should review whether any expenditure, commitment, procurement, personnel cost, overhead, capital item or contingent liability was recorded in the name of the alleged council. If the agency appeared in budget documents, the audit question is simple: did the appearance remain only on paper, or did it generate financial movement, administrative action or liability against the federation?
The seventh probe must examine legislative oversight records. Every agency that receives public allocation should fall within some oversight jurisdiction. Which committee claimed oversight over this alleged body? Were oversight visits conducted? Were invitations issued? Were reports received? Were performance documents submitted? Were procurement plans, quarterly implementation reports or budget performance records filed? If there was no oversight, then the scandal reveals a failure of legislative diligence. If there was oversight, then those records must be produced immediately.
The eighth probe must look at the foreign affairs and diplomatic angle. The Presidency has alleged that Adeyemi falsely solicited a note verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to enable himself and his staff to obtain United States visas. That allegation carries reputational consequences for Nigeria. Which desk handled the request? Was any note verbale issued? Were any foreign missions contacted? Were diplomatic privileges, protocol support or visa facilitation requests made? Were foreign nationals, embassies, multilateral institutions or development partners engaged under the name of this alleged agency? This is where fraud, if established, becomes not just local deception but potential diplomatic embarrassment.
This is why the matter must not be reduced to “Gbajabiamila versus Adeyemi.” That would be too narrow. The Chief of Staff has denied involvement, and the Presidency says his office first alerted security agencies to the alleged fraud. But in a matter of this magnitude, denial is not enough. The proper institutional response is an open, independent and multi-agency inquiry involving the Police, ICPC, EFCC where necessary, the Budget Office, SGF, Accountant-General, Auditor-General, CBN, National Assembly and the Office of the Head of Service.
The central question is no longer whether one man allegedly forged a letter. The central question is whether Nigeria’s public administration has become so porous that a ghost institution can secure office space, claim staff, seek diplomatic recognition, open financial channels and reportedly appear in the national budget. If that is possible, then the scandal is bigger than the accused person. It is a warning that the machinery of government may have gaps wide enough for organised imposture to pass through.
The Presidency must now publish a clear status report. The National Assembly must open a public hearing. The Budget Office must identify the source of the budget entry. The SGF must confirm whether any establishment record exists. The Accountant-General must disclose the account-opening trail. The Auditor-General must audit all related transactions and commitments. The CBN must clarify the status of any account. The security agencies must identify every insider, facilitator, staff member, consultant, aide or public officer connected to the affair.
Until these answers are provided, Nigerians will be entitled to ask: who created the phantom? Who housed it? Who staffed it? Who budgeted for it? Who approved it? Who supervised it? Who hoped to benefit from it? And most importantly, who in government failed to stop it before it became a national scandal?
Amah, a frequent commentator on national issues, writes from Umuahia
