Onanuga’s ‘Fictitious Agency’ Defence Clashes with SGF Paper Trail in PFIPC Scandal
The PFIPC controversy has moved beyond the criminal trial of Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi and now sits squarely on questions of how a purported government agency could function within official corridors before the Presidency declared it fictitious. Documents published by Saturday PUNCH show that on November 21, 2024, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation formally forwarded a request from the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission for office accommodation from recovered federal assets. The forwarding letter, signed by Permanent Secretary Nnamdi Maurice Mbaeri on behalf of the SGF, explicitly named the PFIPC, cited its reference number, and treated it as one of three government institutions seeking space. Registry stamps indicate the SGF’s office received Adeyemi’s letter on November 12 before routing it onward. That paper trail directly complicates the Presidency’s position, articulated by Special Adviser Bayo Onanuga, that the council never existed, because it demonstrates that at least one top bureaucracy acknowledged and processed PFIPC correspondence through normal administrative channels.
The police interim report alleges Adeyemi forged an appointment letter bearing Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila’s signature, opened 34 bank accounts, held meetings with diplomats at the Wells Carlton Hotel, and wrote the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for visa support. The Federal Government has listed Gbajabiamila and 10 others as witnesses in the eight-count charge. Yet civil society groups and opposition parties are asking how PFIPC could allegedly secure 314 staff approvals from the Office of the Head of Civil Service, appear in budget conversations involving N24bn, and operate accounts that may be tied to the Central Bank of Nigeria without triggering earlier alarms. No office or signpost for PFIPC was found at the Federal Secretariat, and its website on the .gov.ng domain went dark by April 2025, but the agency’s name had already traveled through multiple ministries on official letterheads before it was disowned.
Bayo Onanuga’s July 2 statement framed Adeyemi as a “daredevil criminal” running a fictitious council and insisted the Presidency was itself a victim of forgery. On Friday, Senior Special Assistant Temitope Ajayi reinforced that line, arguing that “internal collaborators enabled Adeniyi to get this far” and that the system ultimately detected the fraud when the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission and Foreign Affairs Ministry raised red flags over duplicated mandates and unsanctioned diplomatic meetings. Ajayi maintained that the Chief of Staff is being dragged in as a distraction and that the same system which failed also functioned by exposing the scheme. The defence therefore rests on two points: criminal deception by an outsider, and eventual institutional self-correction.
The contradiction lies in the timeline and the paperwork. If the system worked, it did so only after PFIPC had already written ministries, sought EFCC property, and allegedly interfaced with the banking system. The SGF’s November 2024 forwarding letter shows the council was not just an external scam but an entity that had penetrated the registry and minute system, the basic plumbing of government. That suggests either a breakdown in verification protocols or complicity at some level, both of which are institutional rather than individual failures. The ease with which letterheads, reference numbers, and “on behalf of the SGF” signatures moved the file forward points to a bureaucracy that still confers legitimacy based on paper appearance, not real-time digital authentication or cross-checks against gazetted agencies and the Appropriation Act.
The political fallout has been swift. Femi Falana argues the Presidency cannot exonerate anyone and wants ICPC to investigate both Gbajabiamila and Adeyemi, along with the alleged N24bn budget line and CBN accounts. The ADC and NDC are demanding Gbajabiamila’s removal pending an independent probe, citing what they call a double standard compared to how past allegations were handled. A coalition of CSOs has given a seven-day ultimatum for an ICPC-led inquiry and asked the Chief of Staff to step aside, noting that his continued presence could compromise investigations. Their contention is not that Gbajabiamila signed the letter, but that the system around him allowed a ghost agency to gain traction.
Juxtaposed with Onanuga’s defence, the core issue is no longer only Adeyemi’s alleged forgery. It is whether ministries, the SGF’s office, the Budget Office, and the banking system have adequate kill-switches to stop non-existent entities at the point of entry. Onanuga emphasises that the fraud was detected and that criminals exploit public cynicism about corruption, which is accurate as far as it goes. But detection after engagement is not the same as prevention, and the documents show PFIPC was treated as real long enough to request federal property. The public therefore sees two narratives: one of a rogue conman who fooled segments of government, and another of a bureaucracy where forged authority can still travel far before anyone asks for a gazette or an enabling Act.
Until there is a full audit of how PFIPC correspondence entered the SGF’s registry, who approved staff slots if any, whether budget lines existed, and how bank accounts were opened, the Presidency’s insistence that the council is fictitious will not resolve the credibility gap. Prosecuting Adeyemi may address the crime, but the scandal has already exposed how thin the line is between official process and official pretence when verification relies on stamps, not systems.
