…set up ad-hog committee

The House of Representatives, during Wednesday’s plenary, resolved to investigate how budgetary allocations allegedly linked to the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PEAC/PFIPC) found their way into the 2026 Appropriation Act, despite the Federal Government’s position that the council was never legally established.

The resolution followed the adoption of a motion of urgent public importance on the “Urgent need to safeguard the integrity of the federal budget process following the reported inclusion of the unestablished Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) in the federal budget framework,” sponsored by the Chairman of the House Committee on Navy, Hon. Yusuf Gagdi.

The controversial council’s budget proposal appeared on Pages 50 and 51 of the 2026 budget estimates presented by President Bola Tinubu under code 0111062001, with a total expenditure of N1,302,978,784. This comprised N1,002,978,784 in recurrent expenditure (N802,978,783 for personnel costs and N200,000,001 for overhead costs) and N300,000,000 for capital expenditure for the 2026 fiscal year.

The same amount was approved by the National Assembly on Pages 33 to 35 of the Appropriation Act, signed by the President, under code 0111001001 for the State House Headquarters.

The House Committee on Special Duties is statutorily saddled with the responsibility of overseeing the activities of the State House, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the 10th House of Representatives.

Leading the debate on the motion, Hon. Gagdi argued that the motion neither prejudges nor seeks to pre-empt the ongoing investigations and criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court, Abuja, concerning the controversial council, which the Federal Government has since declared was never lawfully established.

He said:

“The House is aware that the entity relied on a document purporting to be an enactment codified as ‘Chapter N2117, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria’, whereas the records of the National Assembly disclose no Bill for the establishment of any such Council, and the Laws of the Federation contain no Chapter N2117, the nearest designation, Chapter N117, being the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, the very statute whose mandate the entity purported to duplicate, such that the falsity of the purported instrument is apparent on the face of public statutory records.

“The House observes that reports indicate that a budgetary provision in excess of N1.3 billion attributable to the entity found its way into the 2026 Appropriation framework, raising the fundamental question, which falls squarely within the constitutional remit of the House, of how a body without any authentic instrument of establishment could enter the federal budget, whether through the executive proposal or in the course of legislative consideration, and at what point the existing scrutiny safeguards failed to detect it.

“The House is concerned that the ease with which a single unestablished entity progressed through official processes suggests a systemic vulnerability rather than an isolated lapse, and that it cannot be excluded that other fictitious entities are reflected in past or current budget frameworks, a possibility that threatens the credibility of the Appropriation Act and the integrity of the appropriation function of the National Assembly.

“The House is mindful that the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, already obliges the Executive to account to the National Assembly, including through Section 19, which prescribes the documents that must accompany the annual budget; Section 30, which requires quarterly budget implementation reports to the Joint Finance Committee of the National Assembly; and Section 50, which requires quarterly and consolidated annual budget execution reports.

The House is also cognisant of Sections 80, 81, 88 and 89 of the Constitution, which vest in the National Assembly the control of public funds and the power to investigate their disbursement.”

In his remarks, Deputy Speaker Hon. Benjamin Kalu, who described himself as a victim of the scandal, gave a vivid account of how his photograph with the embattled Director-General of the fictitious council, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, trended on social media.

He said:

“Mr. Speaker, it’s quite embarrassing that people have the kind of boldness they exhibited, moving around with what is not in existence and carrying themselves as though they were a legal entity. Mr. Speaker, I was a victim.

And I’m sure if you watch the news, you see my picture all over the screen. For reasons best known to the media organisations, my picture was made to trend, standing side by side with the purported DG of this organisation.

“Mr. Speaker, on the 2nd of May, 2025, my office got a letter. And that letter had the Presidency on top of the letterhead. It had the Office of the Director-General. He didn’t stop there.

It also had Presidential Economic Advisory Council and Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council — two councils under one DG.

Mr. Speaker, when I saw this, I looked down the letterhead and saw Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, Second Floor, Central Business District.

I also saw the website, pfipc.gov.ng. It was a bit confusing for me. Some of the information looked credible, while some did not.

“I then sent my team to verify the existence of this organisation at the stated address. Mr. Speaker, they came back confirming that the organisation was operating at the said location. I then gave approval for them to come and have the interaction they had requested.

“Mr. Speaker, do you know what their interaction was? Let me read it.

They said, to summarise, ‘We are coming specifically to appreciate you for an opportunity to discuss the following: Number one, the 10th House of Representatives Constitution amendment process and its implications for economic governance; legislative priorities that can enhance investors’ confidence; and areas of collaboration between the National Assembly and the Council to drive foreign investment.’

“Mr. Speaker, ordinarily, when you see something like this, and considering that Parliament is an open House, we are the People’s House, anybody who knocks on our door is welcome, especially after proper verification. We threw our doors open for them to come and engage.

Mr. Speaker, when they came and started engaging, the issues they mentioned in the letter were not what they discussed. They did not talk about the Constitution we were amending.

They did not discuss the issues they had listed. They were more interested in taking photographs.

I looked at the calibre of the people before me during the visit, and I questioned whether they had actually been properly engaged by the President.

“Mr. Speaker, this goes to show that a beautiful letterhead bearing the Presidency is no longer confirmation that an agency is legal. It also shows that an address at the Federal Secretariat does not necessarily mean that a particular agency is legitimate.

“It means that we have to do our job, as proposed in this motion. We need to investigate more deeply how they got to where they are with regard to our budget and their engagements with various government officials.

It is our duty, based on Sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution, to dig deeper into this matter. And I’m happy it has come before Parliament.

“I urge members to support this motion so that the House can show the Nigerian populace that we support transparency and accountability in governance. We should be seen to be doing that.”

Also speaking, the Chairman of the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence, Hon. Ahmed Satomi, described the matter as one of national importance and urged a thorough investigation and accountability for anyone found culpable.

To this end, the Speaker disclosed that an ad hoc committee, to be chaired by the Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, Hon. Abubakar Bichi, would investigate how any provision attributable to the entity entered the 2026 Appropriation framework.

The committee was mandated to trace the provision from the executive budget proposal through committee consideration to its passage and identify the stage at which it was introduced.

The Speaker also mandated the ad hoc committee to invite the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning and the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to clarify the verification procedures applied before new entities are admitted into the budget; verify all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies reflected in the 2025 and 2026 Appropriation frameworks against their instruments of establishment; receive briefings from relevant security and anti-corruption agencies without prejudice to the proceedings pending before the Federal High Court; and report back within four weeks for further legislative action.

The ad hoc committee was also directed to request the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation to confirm to the House that no releases have been made and that no warrants will be honoured in respect of any provision attributable to the entity pending the conclusion of investigations.

In line with Sections 19, 30 and 50 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007, the House further directed the Budget Office of the Federation to submit to the National Assembly, ahead of the presentation of each Appropriation Bill, a comprehensive list of all ministries, departments, agencies and other bodies proposed for funding, indicating, for each, its instrument of establishment, so that no entity not listed and certified would be admitted into the Appropriation Bill.

It also directed that the reports required under the Act be transmitted as and when due and made available to the Committees on Appropriations of both chambers.