PFIPC: Let Gbajabiamila answer the questions and let the investigation continue

The unfolding investigation into the alleged Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) scandal has raised questions that the National Assembly can no longer afford to leave unanswered.

The issue is not about protecting any individual, political party or institution. It is about the integrity of Nigeria’s public institutions and the need to establish, without fear or favour, how an organisation alleged to have had no legal foundation was able to obtain recognition, administrative approvals and access to government processes.

The revelations before the House of Representatives Ad-Hoc Committee are disturbing. The Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs Didi Walson-Jack, admitted that her office relied on documents that have since been established as false in granting an authorised establishment and recruitment waiver to the purported agency. She further acknowledged that greater due diligence ought to have been exercised.

The Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, meanwhile, attributed the diversion of correspondence intended for the Permanent Secretary, State House, to an individual official. The committee also established that the Directorate of Administration and Support Services allegedly cited in the correspondence did not exist in the State House.

Read Also:

PFIPC Probe: Okonkwo questions why NASS did not invite Gbajabiamila

NDC demands Gbajabiamila’s removal over PFIPC scandal

Ganduje blames lack of ideology for rising political defections

More troubling is the committee’s finding that documents presented as an Establishment Act and an appointment letter for the purported Director-General, Adeniyi Adeyemi, were not genuine. The committee chairman, Yusuf Gagdi, further stated that police forensic analysis had found that the signature attributed to the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, did not match his genuine signatures.

These are not minor administrative discrepancies. They are serious allegations that demand a thorough, transparent and credible investigation.

Gbajabiamila must be given the opportunity to answer

It is against this background that the position expressed by African Democratic Congress chieftain Kenneth Okonkwo deserves serious consideration.

Okonkwo criticised the National Assembly for concluding or appearing to move towards concluding its investigation without questioning both Adeyemi and Gbajabiamila.

His argument is straightforward: anyone whose name, office, signature or official capacity features prominently in a matter under investigation should be given an opportunity to explain his side.

The Historica Nigeria agrees with this principle.

This is not a declaration that Gbajabiamila is guilty of any wrongdoing. Far from it. Neither should the existence of a document bearing his purported signature be treated as proof that he authored or authorised it.

But precisely because the allegation concerns an appointment letter purportedly issued from his office, and because the Head of Service herself told the committee that the signature on the document appeared different from other signatures attributed to Gbajabiamila, the logical next step is to hear directly from the Chief of Staff.

If he had no knowledge of the document, he should be allowed to say so under oath. If his office issued it, the committee should establish under what authority. If it was fabricated, Nigerians deserve to know how such a document was produced, circulated and relied upon by government institutions.

There is no justification for leaving such a central question hanging.

No one should be shielded

The National Assembly must be careful not to create the impression that some individuals are being treated differently because of their proximity to power.

The issue before the committee is bigger than the political status of any individual. It concerns the vulnerability of the Nigerian state to fraudulent documents and the ability of public officials to distinguish genuine government instruments from fabricated ones.

If ordinary civil servants can be summoned to explain how they processed questionable documents, senior political officeholders whose offices are directly connected to the disputed documents should not be treated as untouchable.

The same standard must apply to everybody.

The National Assembly should therefore invite Gbajabiamila to appear and answer the relevant questions. That is not an indictment. It is due process.

Indeed, allowing him to explain himself could help dispel suspicion and protect his own reputation if he has no connection with the alleged documents.

The police must also follow the evidence

The absence of Adeyemi from the hearing should not become an excuse for abandoning the investigation.

The Nigeria Police Force told the committee that the purported PFIPC Director-General remained in custody under a subsisting court order and therefore could not be produced without an appropriate court order.

That explanation may have legal merit, but it should not end the matter.

If the committee requires his testimony, the appropriate legal procedure should be followed to secure his appearance. The investigation must not be weakened by procedural obstacles that can lawfully be addressed.

Similarly, the Police should continue to pursue the forensic, documentary and cybercrime dimensions of the case wherever the evidence leads.

NASS must not rush to protect its own reputation

The National Assembly has a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight without fear or favour.

It would therefore be unfortunate if the investigation were prematurely concluded simply because it has begun to expose uncomfortable institutional failures or potentially embarrassing questions involving powerful individuals.

The purpose of an investigation is not to protect the reputation of government institutions. It is to discover the truth.

If the Head of Service made mistakes, the investigation should establish precisely what happened. If an official diverted correspondence, the circumstances and motive should be established. If government institutions acted on fabricated documents, those responsible should be identified. If the alleged documents were genuine, the relevant authorities should demonstrate their authenticity and legal basis.

And if any individual, regardless of position, knowingly participated in wrongdoing, the law should take its course.

Nigerians deserve the full story

The PFIPC controversy has already raised fundamental questions about institutional controls, verification procedures and the security of government documentation.

How could an alleged non-existent agency get so far into the machinery of government?

How did documents that investigators now consider fake pass through multiple layers of official scrutiny?

Who created or submitted the documents?

Who received them?

Who processed them?

Who authorised the subsequent actions?

Who benefited?

And, perhaps most importantly, how can the country ensure that such an occurrence does not happen again?

These questions cannot be answered by selectively questioning some officials while leaving others whose names are central to the allegations unheard.

The Historica Nigeria’s position

The Historica Nigeria believes the National Assembly should let the PFIPC investigation run its full course without political protection, intimidation or premature conclusions.

The House committee must invite Femi Gbajabiamila to answer the questions within its mandate, while ensuring that Adeniyi Adeyemi is brought before the panel through the appropriate legal process if his testimony remains necessary.

At the same time, every government institution implicated in the chain of events must cooperate fully with investigators.

The National Assembly should also publish its findings and supporting evidence in a manner that allows Nigerians to understand what happened, who was responsible and what reforms are required.

We do not support the trial of anyone by media speculation. We do not support the persecution of anyone because of political affiliation. But neither do we support the shielding of anyone from legitimate scrutiny because of his office or proximity to power.

The answer to allegations is investigation. The answer to investigation is evidence. And where evidence establishes wrongdoing, the answer must be accountability.

The PFIPC affair should therefore become more than another political controversy that disappears after public attention fades. It should be an opportunity to strengthen Nigeria’s institutions, close loopholes in government verification systems and demonstrate that no office is too powerful to be questioned and no individual is too important to answer legitimate questions.

The point of discussion is straight forward, investigate fully, hear everyone relevant, follow the evidence and let the law take its course.

Anything less risks leaving Nigerians with more questions than answers.