Budget Office tells lawmakers the PFIPC originated from a Buhari-era process and explains why the controversial council appeared in the 2026 budget despite later being declared fake.
The Budget Office of the Federation (BOF) has defended its decision to include funding for the controversial Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) in the 2026 national budget, insisting that the agency’s appearance in the appropriation process was not the result of an independent action by the office.
Rather, the Budget Office says the council’s administrative foundation predates the current controversy and can be traced to institutional decisions made during the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
The clarification was made by the Director-General of the Budget Office, Tanimu Yakubu, while addressing members of the House of Representatives in Abuja on Friday, July 24.
His appearance before lawmakers came amid growing public interest in the PFIPC, an organisation that the Presidency has publicly described as a fake agency and which is currently under investigation by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
Yakubu told lawmakers that the Budget Office merely carried out its statutory responsibility after receiving official administrative documents from relevant government institutions.
According to him, the Budget Office neither created the PFIPC nor approved its establishment, assigned it an administrative code or authorised its recruitment process.
Instead, he explained that those responsibilities had already been handled by other government agencies before the preparation of the 2026 Appropriation Bill began.
He said the institutional history of the council could be linked to the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC), which was inaugurated by former President Muhammadu Buhari on October 9, 2019.
Yakubu noted that by the time work commenced on the 2026 budget, the necessary administrative instruments concerning the PFIPC had already been issued by government institutions responsible for such approvals.
He explained that the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation had assigned an official administrative code to the council, while the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation had approved its authorised establishment and granted a recruitment waiver.
Related news
PFIPC DG Adeniyi Matthew explains why he created controversial agency
Gbajabiamila gives PFIPC DG 72 hours to retract allegations, threatens N10bn defamation suit
PFIPC controversy: Arewa Think Tank urges Tinubu to ignore allegations against Gbajabiamila
PFIPC scandal: Atiku gives Tinubu seven days to order probe
In addition, he said an applicable public service salary structure already existed for the council’s proposed workforce.
According to the Budget Office chief, those official documents formed the basis upon which his office carried out its constitutional responsibility of determining the fiscal implications of the council’s personnel costs.
He stressed that the Budget Office could not ignore valid administrative instruments forwarded by authorised government agencies.
“PEAC/PFIPC did not enter the 2026 Budget merely because it asked for funds,” Yakubu told lawmakers.
He explained that the Budget Office’s responsibility was limited to assessing the financial impact of the official approvals it received rather than determining whether the council should exist.
He added that all the administrative approvals relied upon by the Budget Office originated from institutions legally empowered to issue them.
Yakubu also disclosed that the PFIPC initially proposed a personnel budget of N3.85 billion for the 2026 fiscal year.
However, he insisted that the Budget Office rejected that submission and carried out its own independent assessment.
Using the authorised staff strength, approved recruitment waiver, existing salary scale and government costing methodology, the office reduced the proposed personnel expenditure significantly.
The final figure approved by the Budget Office stood at N802,978,783, representing less than one quarter of the amount originally requested by the council.
According to Yakubu, the reduction demonstrated that the Budget Office exercised independent fiscal judgment instead of simply endorsing the council’s proposal.
He maintained that the figure eventually included in the Executive Budget was generated solely through official government budgeting procedures.
Despite the appropriation, Yakubu disclosed that the PFIPC was ultimately unable to access the approved personnel allocation.
He explained that the promoter of the council, Prince Adeyemi Adeniyi, failed to satisfy the necessary fiscal and regulatory conditions required before the release of government funds.
As a result, although money was appropriated for personnel costs, the council did not receive the allocation.
The controversy surrounding the PFIPC first became public on June 11, 2026, after the Chief of Staff to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Femi Gbajabiamila, publicly distanced the Presidency from the organisation.
Gbajabiamila described the council as a fake agency and petitioned relevant law enforcement authorities to investigate its activities and claims.
The Presidency’s position immediately triggered widespread public debate over how an organisation later disowned by the government was able to secure official documentation and make its way into the national budget.
The matter took another dramatic turn on June 26, when Prince Adeyemi Adeniyi, who identified himself as the Director-General of the PFIPC, addressed journalists and rejected the Presidency’s disclaimer.
During the press conference, Adeyemi alleged that Gbajabiamila received N400 million through a proxy and later demanded an additional N200 million to facilitate his appointment.
The Chief of Staff strongly denied the allegations.
Following the accusation, Gbajabiamila instituted a defamation suit against Adeyemi, seeking N15 billion in damages.
Meanwhile, police authorities arrested Adeyemi as investigations into the PFIPC continued.
He is currently in custody over allegations linked to the council, including claims of forgery and other offences connected with the ongoing investigation.
Yakubu’s explanation before the House of Representatives has now added another dimension to the controversy.
While the Budget Office insists it merely processed official documents received from other government institutions, lawmakers and investigators are expected to examine how those approvals were issued in the first place.
The revelations have also renewed calls for greater transparency and stronger oversight in the creation, recognition and funding of government agencies to prevent similar controversies in the future.
As investigations by the ICPC, the Nigeria Police Force and other relevant authorities continue, attention is likely to remain focused on identifying everyone involved in the administrative processes that enabled the PFIPC to receive official recognition before eventually being disowned by the Federal Government.
The outcome of the investigations is expected to clarify whether established procedures were followed, whether any officials exceeded their authority and whether criminal or administrative sanctions will follow.
About The Author
