The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) yesterday told the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the legal basis, operations and budgetary inclusion of the ‘phantom’ Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) that it received authorisation from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) to open two domiciliary accounts for the council.
The revelation from the apex bank is coming as the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) on Monday questioned the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, over allegations against him by the purported Director General of the council, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi.
Adeyemi had alleged that he paid N400 million to Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila through the late Babatunde Dolapo Tanimola to secure the appointment. He also claimed that the Chief of Staff allegedly demanded 48 per cent from the agency’s N27.3 billion take-off grant. Gbajabiamila had debunked the allegations and filed a N15bn defamation suit against Adeyemi.
Also, over N1.3 billion was allocated to the PFIPC in the approved 2026 budget, raising questions on how the ‘fictitious’ council found its way into the budget without the National Assembly spotting it.
Findings further revealed that Adeyemi got approvals for the employment of 300 staff members and an office space at the Federal Secretariat, Abuja, and opened accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
But the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation (OAGF) insisted that the disputed council had no account with the apex bank, contradicting the Presidency’s statement that Adeyemi used fake documents and misled the OAGF to fraudulently open a CBN account.
While appearing before the probe panel shortly after the inauguration of the ad hoc committee at the National Assembly on Monday, a director at the CBN, Hamisu Abdullahi, who represented the CBN Governor at the investigative hearing, disclosed that the apex bank received a mandate from the OAGF to open two domiciliary accounts for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.
According to him, the accounts, one United States dollar domiciliary account and one Pound Sterling domiciliary account, were opened on July 30, 2025.
He, however, informed lawmakers that the accounts remained inactive because the council failed to provide authorised signatories required for their operation.
“The process for opening the account requires a mandate from the office of the Account General of the Federation. So once we receive that mandate, we perform all the necessary verification to confirm that this mandate is actually coming from the Office of the Accountant General. So once we confirm that, we have some internal procedures too, which we follow to open those accounts.
“On the 30th of July 2025, we received a mandate dated 29 July 2025 from the office of the Accountant-General of the Federation to the Central Bank of Nigeria to open two domiciliary accounts for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/ Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.
“Based on that mandate, we did the normal verification to confirm the genuineness of the mandate and also process the account opening. And two accounts were actually opened: a domiciliary account, one dollar account and one pound sterling account for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/ Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion. Those two accounts remain inactive with zero balance and have never been operated,” Abdullahi stated.
He further disclosed that there had been no financial activities linked to the accounts, including foreign exchange allocations, remittances, inflows or outflows.
“There have been no foreign exchange allocations, no remittances, no inflows and no outflows. The accounts have maintained zero balance from inception to date,” he said.
The CBN official explained that the bank does not have direct dealings with Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) on account opening, closure or change of account details except through the OAGF.
“As a banker to the federal government, the Central Bank has responsibility for opening all accounts for Ministries, Departments and Agencies, with the exception of those exempted from the Treasury Single Account,” he said.
Abdullahi added that the apex bank had no direct correspondence with the council regarding the operation of the accounts.
On her part, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs Didi Esther Walson-Jack, told the committee that her office had no constitutional responsibility for establishing government agencies.
She explained that while the office approves administrative structures of federal agencies, the establishment of such agencies falls outside its mandate.
“The approval and establishment of agencies is not within the purview of the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (OHCSF). However, the OHCSF is responsible for approving the administrative structure of federal government agencies,” she said.
The OHCSF representative disclosed that the council had submitted a request for approval of its organisational structure on August 6, 2025, but the request was not granted because the required documents were not provided.
She, however, stated that during the 2025 annual manpower budget defence exercise, officials of the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council requested an authorised establishment and recruitment waiver.
According to her, the council informed the office that 14 officers, including the Director-General/Chief Executive Officer, were already working with the body and sought approval to commence full operations.
She added that the request was processed alongside those of 87 other MDAs and later approved as part of the fourth batch of manpower approvals.
The approval provided for 314 positions, comprising 14 existing officers and 300 additional positions.
However, the OHCSF disclosed that it later discovered irregularities in documents submitted by the council as its enabling legal instrument.
“It was observed that the document presented by the council as its enabling law or legal instrument did not really carry the requisite features,” she told lawmakers.
The Head of Service also denied deploying civil servants to the council or allocating office accommodation to it.
“We wish to state that there was no deployment of staff by the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation to the council,” she said.
She added that reports linking the office to the allocation of accommodation at the Federal Secretariat Phase III were incorrect.
