FG FILES FRESH 36-COUNT CHARGE AGAINST ALLEGED FAKE PRESIDENTIAL AGENCY BOSS ADENIYI ADEYEMI, FOUR OTHERS

The Federal Government has filed a fresh 36-count amended criminal charge against Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, the man accused of presenting himself as the director-general of a fictitious presidential investment body, and four civil servants over allegations including forgery, false representation, impersonation, corruption and fraud, significantly expanding a case that has raised questions about how an organization the Presidency says never legally existed was allegedly able to acquire the appearance of a functioning federal agency. Adeyemi appeared before Justice Yusuf Halilu of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Monday alongside three of the newly added defendants, but their arraignment on the amended charge could not proceed because the fourth co-defendant, Florence Omameh, was absent from court on health grounds. The judge adjourned the case until November 18 and ordered Adeyemi returned to Kuje Correctional Centre while the other defendants present were remanded in the custody of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission.

The amended case represents a substantial escalation from the earlier 22-count prosecution against Adeyemi. The ICPC has now joined four civil servants — Patricia Akhigbe, Florence Omameh, Aminu Abdullahi and Ogaba Harry — as co-defendants, alleging that public officials assisted or participated in transactions connected to the purported Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, also referred to in official government statements as the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council. The new counts cover allegations of criminal conspiracy, forgery, false representation, impersonation of a public officer, offering gratification, official corruption and abuse of office. None of the allegations against the defendants has yet been proved at trial, and all five are entitled to the presumption of innocence unless convicted.

Prosecuting counsel Sylvanus Tahir, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, told the court that the amended information had transformed the proceeding into a joint trial involving five defendants. He said Omameh, who had been served with the amended charge and accompanying proof of evidence, was receiving medical treatment at an Abuja hospital and could not attend Monday’s proceedings. Tahir asked the court for a seven-day adjournment to allow her to recover and appear for arraignment, while counsel to Adeyemi, Ibrahim Angulu, SAN, urged the court to grant a shorter date because he intended to pursue a bail application for his client and told the judge that Adeyemi had already spent more than 200 days in detention.

Justice Halilu ultimately fixed November 18 for all five defendants to appear and take their pleas. Adeyemi was ordered to remain at Kuje Correctional Centre, while Akhigbe, Abdullahi and Harry were directed to remain in ICPC custody pending the next hearing. The adjournment means the newly amended 36-count charge has not yet been formally pleaded to by the defendants, and the court has made no finding on the substance of the allegations.

At the center of the case is the alleged creation and operation of what prosecutors describe as a fake federal agency. The Presidency has repeatedly stated that the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, or the similarly styled Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, was never established by the Federal Government and has no basis in any law, executive order, presidential instrument or other lawful act. The Office of the Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu has also denied ever appointing Adeyemi to lead such an organization.

The controversy became public after government officials discovered that Adeyemi was allegedly presenting himself as the director-general of the purported council and using documents that appeared to give him official presidential authority. The Presidency said he claimed to have been appointed through the Office of the Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, an assertion the Chief of Staff publicly rejected. In June, the Presidency issued a disclaimer warning foreign missions, financial institutions, development organizations, security agencies and members of the public that no such appointment had been made and that the office Adeyemi claimed to occupy did not exist under the Tinubu administration.

President Tinubu later directed the ICPC to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the activities of the purported agency and the wider network of individuals or institutions that may have enabled it to operate. The directive specifically instructed investigators to examine allegedly forged appointment letters and government documents, claims of presidential authority, attempts to obtain diplomatic assistance, bank accounts opened in the names of purported government organizations and the possible involvement of public officials or private intermediaries who may have helped create an appearance of legitimacy.

The ICPC’s preliminary findings subsequently concluded that Adeyemi had never been appointed by the Federal Government or any other lawful government authority. Commission chairman Musa Adamu Aliyu, SAN, said the appointment letter, gazette and other official-looking documents presented to support the existence of the PFIPC were allegedly forged. The commission also said investigators uncovered two additional purported organizations allegedly linked to Adeyemi and found evidence that forged legislative and administrative instruments had been used in attempts to create institutional identities and open bank accounts.

Crucially, however, the ICPC said its investigation found no evidence that Federal Government money had actually been approved or disbursed to the fictitious PFIPC. That distinction is important because some reports surrounding the case have suggested that billions of naira were successfully obtained from government. The prosecution’s allegation is that Adeyemi allegedly sought access to enormous public funds through the purported agency, not that the Federal Government ultimately released the entire amount.

According to the amended case reported by multiple Nigerian news organizations, the ICPC alleges that Adeyemi used forged documents to seek more than ₦27 billion from the Federal Government for establishment and operational purposes connected to the purported agency, alongside approximately ₦3.8 billion said to have been requested for personnel expenditure. Those figures together bring the alleged funding sought to more than ₦30 billion. Prosecutors will still have to establish in court exactly what documents were submitted, what amounts were requested, who received the requests and whether the conduct alleged satisfies the criminal offenses contained in the charge.

The prosecution also alleges that Adeyemi forged an appointment document purportedly bearing the authority or signature of senior officials in the Presidency and used official-looking correspondence to secure recognition from government institutions. Investigators say that included attempts to obtain government office space, official identification, a federal government internet domain and other facilities ordinarily available to legitimate ministries, departments and agencies.

One of the most striking elements of the investigation is how far the purported organization allegedly progressed despite the Presidency’s position that it had no legal existence. Government records and statements indicate that Adeyemi and associates allegedly occupied office space within the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja and conducted meetings while presenting themselves as officials of a presidential council. The Presidency has said the circumstances that allowed the group to gain such access exposed weaknesses in government verification and inter-agency communication systems.

Those weaknesses formed part of President Tinubu’s instruction to the ICPC. The president asked investigators not merely to determine whether individual crimes had been committed but also to identify institutional failures that could allow a fictitious government entity to acquire office space, seek diplomatic recognition or interact with public institutions without its legal status being properly verified.

The amended charge now appears to bring that wider investigation directly into the criminal case by adding four civil servants as defendants. Their inclusion suggests prosecutors believe the alleged scheme was not confined to one individual and that officials inside government institutions may have played roles in enabling particular requests or transactions. Those allegations remain unproven and must be tested through evidence at trial.

Prosecutors allege that Adeyemi offered ₦210,000 to Aminu Abdullahi, described in reports as an Assistant Chief Technical Officer associated with the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, to facilitate access to government office accommodation. The charge further alleges that ₦300,000 was offered to Ogaba Harry, an official linked to the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser to the President, in connection with efforts to obtain two government vehicles, including a Prado sport utility vehicle and a Land Cruiser.

The precise roles allegedly played by Akhigbe and Omameh will also form part of the prosecution’s evidence when the defendants are eventually arraigned and the matter moves toward trial. The civil servants added to the case are reportedly attached to federal institutions including the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and the Federal Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning. Their addition has turned what initially appeared to be primarily a forgery and impersonation case into a wider corruption prosecution examining the interaction between the alleged fictitious agency and legitimate government offices.

Earlier investigations also examined bank accounts linked to Adeyemi and organizations prosecutors say were fictitious. The Presidency previously said police investigators identified dozens of accounts associated with him, including accounts opened in the names of purported agencies. Investigators alleged that false documents were used to create the appearance that those organizations were lawful public bodies.

One allegation involved the opening of an account within the government financial system after officials were allegedly misled about the status of the organization. The Presidency later stressed that no Federal Government funds had been transferred into that account, an important clarification in assessing the financial scale of the case. The alleged attempted access to public money, rather than the successful loss of the entire amount sought, remains central to the prosecution narrative.

The controversy also reached the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Authorities say Adeyemi’s purported organization sought diplomatic documentation, including a note verbale intended to facilitate visa applications for personnel claiming to represent the supposed presidential council. Such a document, if issued on the basis of false official status, could have given the group credibility before foreign governments and diplomatic missions.

The Chief of Staff’s office said concerns about the organization had been circulating inside government well before the case became a major public controversy. According to the Presidency, officials at the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission raised questions after encountering another body whose activities appeared to overlap with legitimate government investment-promotion functions. That prompted requests for clarification and eventually formal denials that the PFIPC had any lawful status.

The Presidency has said the Chief of Staff asked the Department of State Services and the Nigeria Police Force to investigate allegations that individuals were forging presidential appointment documents and using them to claim leadership roles in nonexistent institutions. Security agencies later concluded, according to government statements, that the purported agency had no lawful basis and that documents associated with it were forged.

The case raises broader questions about administrative safeguards within Nigeria’s federal bureaucracy. Government ministries and agencies routinely rely on official letters, appointment documents, gazettes, memos and inter-agency communications to verify authority. If forged documents can pass through multiple institutions without immediate detection, the vulnerability extends beyond one alleged scheme and could potentially be exploited for procurement, banking, diplomatic or budgetary purposes.

That concern explains why the Tinubu administration has framed the matter not only as an alleged fraud case but as an institutional integrity issue. The president directed the ICPC to identify verification weaknesses and recommend measures to prevent similar abuses. Those measures could involve more centralized confirmation of presidential appointments, improved digital authentication of government correspondence and stronger requirements for agencies to verify the statutory or executive basis of any organization claiming federal status.

The case also illustrates the legal difference between appearing to operate a government office and actually possessing lawful authority. Federal institutions ordinarily require a clear enabling law, executive instrument or other recognized legal basis, while senior appointments must follow established procedures. Prosecutors allege that Adeyemi created the appearance of those requirements through forged documents and false representations.

Adeyemi has previously denied wrongdoing and entered not-guilty pleas when earlier charges were brought against him. Monday’s adjournment means he has not yet pleaded to the newly expanded 36-count information. His lawyers will have the opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s evidence, contest the authenticity and interpretation of documents, question witnesses and argue any legal defenses available to him.

The same presumption applies to the four civil servants now joined to the case. The fact that prosecutors have filed charges does not establish that they accepted bribes, abused office or knowingly facilitated a fictitious agency. The prosecution must prove each allegation beyond reasonable doubt before the court can convict any defendant.

The November 18 arraignment will therefore be the next important stage. If all defendants are present, the amended charges are expected to be read and each defendant will enter a plea. Their lawyers may also renew or file bail applications, while prosecutors could provide further detail about the documentary and financial evidence on which the 36 counts are based.

For the Federal Government, the significance of the case extends beyond the defendants. The allegation that an unrecognized body could acquire office space, communicate with government institutions, seek billions of naira in funding and present itself to outsiders as a presidential agency has already prompted questions about the safeguards surrounding Nigeria’s public service. Even if no federal funds were ultimately disbursed, the appearance of legitimacy allegedly achieved by the organization has exposed weaknesses the government says it intends to address.

For the defendants, however, the legal issue is narrower and must remain so. Prosecutors have brought serious allegations involving forgery, impersonation, corruption and fraudulent representation, but those allegations remain accusations until evidence is tested and judgments delivered. The earlier public statements by the Presidency and ICPC establish the government’s position on whether PFIPC legally existed, but they do not replace the criminal trial required to determine individual guilt.

The next hearing on November 18 is expected to move the matter formally into its expanded phase, with five defendants facing 36 counts rather than Adeyemi confronting the case largely alone. What happens after that will depend on pleas, bail applications, documentary evidence and witness testimony, including the prosecution’s effort to show how the purported agency was created, how it obtained access to government institutions and whether public officials knowingly assisted the alleged scheme.

The most consequential question may ultimately be institutional rather than personal: how a body the Presidency says never existed in law allegedly managed to function with enough apparent credibility to interact with multiple government offices. The trial will determine whether the individual criminal allegations are proved, while the wider investigation will continue to test whether weaknesses in Nigeria’s administrative verification systems made the alleged scheme possible. Until the court reaches those conclusions, Adeyemi and the four co-defendants remain accused persons facing a substantially broadened prosecution, not convicted offenders.