Storm over fake agency probe as Reps prepare final report
The Chairman of the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, Yusuf Gagdi, has again come under fire as the panel prepares to conclude its assignment.
Barring any sudden twist, the committee will conclude its assignment in the next couple of weeks ahead of the presentation of its report to the House in plenary.
On Monday, a member of the House faulted the decision to appoint Gagdi the chairman of the probe panel.
According to him, it was the Plateau lawmaker (Gagdi) who brought a motion on the floor of the House, praying the Green Chamber to investigate the alleged agency.
He said, “Where have you seen this before that the member who brought an issue for investigation will be made the chair of the committee set up to probe the issues raised in that motion? I am not saying it is in our Rules Book, but it is definitely not a convention. This is where I think the Speaker missed it.
“In every investigation, there is a complainant and a respondent. If the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, wrote to the police in October 2025 concerning the man now in detention, why not invite him to come and adopt those letters?”
The lawmaker, who pleaded anonymity because he did not want to preempt the outcome of the probe, also faulted claims by the panel that signatures of Gbajabiamila in documents tendered before the committee were different from the appointment letter issued to Adeyemi, noting some highly placed persons use more than one signature.
“Again, the chairman declared last week that the signature contained in the letter appointing the ‘fake’ DG is different from those in other letters written by Femi. Is this the first time some important personalities will have two or more different signatures?” he asked.
He also accused the panel of carrying out what he called a one-sided investigation, saying, “They keep saying the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission is handling the criminal aspect of the probe.
Does that stop the committee from inviting Femi for questioning?”
He added that Gagdi, in one of the committee’s sittings last week, moderated the session in a one-man show style, even shutting out a panel member who attempted to ask what seemed an important question.
Last Thursday, the Plateau lawmaker invited the House press corps for continuation of proceedings only to fail to show up, without a formal communication to the leadership of the corps.
All these have left many wondering what the outcome of the investigation would be.
Speaking exclusively with The PUNCH, a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress and former Secretary General of the Arewa Consultative Forum, Anthony Sani, said Nigerians expected a comprehensive probe featuring everyone mentioned in the scandal.
He said, “The public expects the probe to be thorough and dispel any misconceptions. The death of the alleged intermediary, Dolapo Tanimola, should be of concern to the probe panel.
“I suggest that all circumstances which can lead to the truth should not be left unturned.”
According to him, “The circumstances which led to the death of the intermediary Tanimola should be looked into by the probe panel.”
In a separate interview with our correspondent, the Executive Director, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, Ibrahim Rafsanjani, said the PFIPC scandal raised fundamental questions about the integrity of Nigeria’s public institutions, budgeting system, security architecture and presidential bureaucracy.
He said, “CISLAC is not sufficiently impressed with the depth, independence and comprehensiveness of the investigation conducted so far by the House ad hoc committee.
“A legislative investigation of this magnitude must go beyond establishing whether an appointment letter was forged or whether the disputed agency had a lawful basis.
“It must determine how the entity penetrated multiple layers of government, who facilitated its operations, who failed in their responsibilities, whether public funds were released or expended, and whether politically exposed persons or senior public officials played any direct or indirect role.
“We are concerned that the committee failed to rigorously question police investigators regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Dolapo Tanimola and that represents a major gap.
“Mr Tanimola has been publicly identified in allegations as an intermediary who allegedly received N400m purportedly for onward delivery to the Chief of Staff to the President, Mr Femi Gbajabiamila.
“The seriousness of this issue required the committee to demand a detailed account from the police regarding the circumstances, location, date and cause of his death; the status of any autopsy, coroner’s inquiry or forensic examination; persons who last contacted or met him; and whether his death affected the collection or preservation of evidence.”
The CISLAC boss further noted that a credible investigation “cannot simply avoid a controversial death connected to a central allegation,” stressing that “failure to interrogate this aspect creates suspicion, weakens public confidence and leaves a potentially important evidentiary trail unexplored.”
He further noted that “The report that the committee was under pressure to invite Mr Gbajabiamila demonstrates the public expectation that no individual should be considered too highly placed to answer relevant questions.
“An invitation would not amount to a declaration of guilt; it would provide an opportunity to clarify the record and demonstrate that legislative investigation applies to all.”
On the huge amount that allegedly exchanged hands, Rafsanjani said the committee should have demanded evidence concerning the alleged source, movement and intended recipient of the N400m.
