PFIPC Probe: Why we didn’t invite, interrogate Gbajabiamila – Reps panel chair

Yusuf Gagdi, chairman of the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the alleged establishment and operations of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), has explained why the panel did not invite President Bola Tinubu’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, despite documents linking him to the controversial agency.

Mr Gagdi, who represents Pankshin/Kanke/Kanam Federal Constituency of Plateau State, said the committee’s investigation was never designed to focus on Mr Gbajabiamila or any other individual but on how an agency without a valid legal foundation allegedly became integrated into the federal government’s administrative and financial systems.

He clarified on Wednesday during an interview on Arise Television, hours after the committee released its preliminary findings on the alleged agency.

The committee had cleared Mr Gbajabiamila, a former speaker of the House, when it presented its findings on Wednesday in Abuja.

Mr Adeyemi, among other things, has accused the COS of receiving ₦400 million through proxies in connection with appointment to the fake organisation, and abusing and exploiting his office to intimidate individuals and media organisations.

Mr Gbajabiamila has since denied the allegations. He also filed a N15 billion defamation suit against Mr Adeyemi.

According to Mr Gagdi, the House gave the committee a broad mandate requiring it to establish, among other things, whether the PFIPC had any legal backing, whether the documents used to establish it were genuine,ne and how it gained access to government facilities and public funds.

“Actually, the impression that people have that the entirety of that committee is about Femi Gbajabiamila is not true, she said.

“There are so many issues and terms of reference donated to the committee by the House of Representatives in view of the activities surrounding the unestablished agency.”

Mr Gagdi said the committee did not invite Mr Gbajabiamila because its first responsibility was to establish how the alleged agency came into existence rather than to summon individuals whose names appeared in documents connected to it.

He said the committee advertised its investigation and invited members of the public and relevant institutions to submit memoranda and documents.

“In the first instance, what is the procedure of investigation? We wrote to national dailies and even to some print and electronic media. We gave an advertisement for people to submit memoranda,” he said.

He explained that the committee’s mandate was to establish who created the agency and under what authority.

“If our mandate was to establish how the agency came into existence, who established the agency? It’s not for Femi,” he said.

Mr Gagdi said Nigerian government agencies can be created through legislation passed by the National Assembly or, where constitutionally permissible, through an executive instrument, and that the committee therefore first had to determine the legal basis of the PFIPC.

“That was the first thing we needed to establish,” he said.

According to him, it was during that process that the committee began uncovering documents and correspondence involving several individuals and government institutions, including Mr Gbajabiamila.

He said the chief of staff became connected to the investigation because documents obtained by the committee contained references to him, rather than because the committee had decided from the outset to make him the subject of the probe.

“People want us to make the Chief of Staff the central attraction of the matter. Ours is to make the entire federal government the central attraction of the matter,” Mr Gagdi said.

He added that where a petition or memorandum was made against an individual, the committee could invite that person to answer questions.

Why hearing involving alleged DG was held privately

Mr Gagdi also rejected suggestions that the committee conducted its investigation behind closed doors.

He said the only private meeting involved Mr Adeyemi, whom the committee had invited while he was in police custody.

According to him, the committee wrote to the police requesting that Mr Adeyemi be brought before it at the National Assembly.

The police, however, declined, citing an existing court order directing that he remain in police custody.

Mr Gagdi said the committee accepted the police’s explanation because the National Assembly could not disregard a judicial pronouncement.

“We must respect judicial pronouncement,” he said.

He therefore rejected claims that the committee deliberately shielded its proceedings from the public.

The committee chairman also defended the decision to investigate the wider circumstances surrounding the alleged agent, despite criminal allegations against Mr Adeyemi already before the courts.

He said the committee deliberately avoided investigating matters that were directly before the court.

According to him, the court case concerns the alleged fraudulent activities of Mr Adeyemi. At the same time, let the House investigation focus on how the alleged agency entered the federal government’s administrative and budgetary system.

“What is before the court is the activities of the DG and his fraudulent activities, which are suspected to have been taking place. That is in court.”

He argued that Parliament could still investigate administrative and institutional questions surrounding the alleged agency, even when those matters were not before the court.

Gagdi defends House against oversight failure

The committee chairman was also asked whether the emergence of an alleged fake government agency exposed the National Assembly’s failure to exercise its oversight functions properly.

Mr Gagdi rejected the suggestion that the National Assembly should be blamed for the alleged agency’s emergence.

He said the Executive arm is primarily responsible for scrutinising the legality and authenticity of agencies submitting proposals during the federal budget preparation process.

“The work of the National Assembly in the budgetary process is not to scrutinise agencies to know whether they are legal or illegal,” he said.

He explained that ministries and government departments are expected to vet submissions from agencies under their supervision before such requests eventually reach the National Assembly through the budget process.

The federal legislature, he said, primarily scrutinises proposed allocations rather than independently determining the legal status of every agency appearing in the budget.

He acknowledged, however, that the committee could recommend measures to strengthen institutional safeguards against similar occurrences.

Why report is only preliminary

Mr Gagdi said the committee released its preliminary findings because Nigerians had become concerned about the investigation and wanted to know what the panel had uncovered.

He said the committee obtained approval from the Speaker of the House, Abbas Tajudeen, to make the preliminary findings public while it continues its work.

“If the House resumes during plenary, we are working to tidy up and present a comprehensive report to the House,” he said.

The committee is expected to conduct further inquiries before submitting its final report to the House.

The preliminary findings

The committee, in its preliminary findings, said it found no evidence of any Act of the National Assembly establishing the PFIPC, despite documents presented to it suggesting that the agency was created under an Act of Parliament.

It also said the document purporting to be the enabling Act, a letter allegedly directing the take-off of the agency from the Presidency and the appointment letter of its purported Director-General, Mr Adeyemi, were forged.

The committee further reported that its preliminary investigation traced 58 bank accounts allegedly linked to Mr Adeyemi through his Bank Verification Number (BVN), with some of the accounts connected to 12 different agencies.

It said security and anti-corruption agencies, including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), State Security Services (SSS) and the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), had provided documents indicating that investigations into aspects of the matter were already ongoing.

The committee stressed that its findings were preliminary and that further investigation was required to establish the roles of the individuals and institutions involved before it could submit a comprehensive report to the House.