PFIPC Probe: Gagdi Explains Why Reps Did Not Invite Tinubu’s Chief of Staff

The House of Representatives has explained why President Bola Tinubu’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, was not invited to testify before the committee investigating the alleged Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC).

Chairman of the ad hoc committee, Yusuf Gagdi, said the probe was not designed to target Gbajabiamila but to determine how an agency with no established legal foundation allegedly became embedded in the Federal Government’s administrative and financial systems.

Speaking on Arise Television on Wednesday, Gagdi said the committee’s first task was to establish how the alleged agency was created, who authorised it and whether the documents used to support its existence were genuine.

He said Gbajabiamila’s name became relevant only after documents submitted to the committee contained references to him. Gagdi stressed that the committee was investigating the wider circumstances surrounding the PFIPC rather than making the Chief of Staff the focus of the exercise.

Mr Adeyemi, the alleged Director-General of the agency, had accused Gbajabiamila of receiving ₦400 million through proxies in connection with appointments to the organisation. Gbajabiamila has denied the allegation and filed a ₦15 billion defamation suit against Adeyemi.

Gagdi said the committee publicly advertised its investigation and invited individuals, government institutions and members of the public to submit documents and memoranda. He added that anyone specifically accused in a petition could be invited to respond, but the committee had to first establish the legal status of the alleged agency.

The lawmaker also dismissed claims that the committee conducted its proceedings behind closed doors. He said the only private hearing involved Adeyemi, who was in police custody at the time. According to Gagdi, the police declined to bring him to the National Assembly because of an existing court order, and the committee chose to respect the judicial directive.

Gagdi further defended the House’s decision to investigate the PFIPC while criminal allegations against Adeyemi were already before the courts. He said the court was dealing with alleged fraudulent activities, while the parliamentary probe was examining broader administrative and institutional questions, including how the alleged agency gained access to government structures and public funds.

The committee’s preliminary findings said it found no Act of the National Assembly establishing the PFIPC and described documents presented as the agency’s enabling law, a presidential directive and Adeyemi’s appointment letter as forged. The panel also said it traced 58 bank accounts allegedly linked to Adeyemi through his BVN, with some connected to 12 agencies, while EFCC, ICPC, SSS and the Nigeria Police Force had provided documents showing that related investigations were ongoing. Gagdi stressed that the findings remain preliminary as the committee continues its work.