The Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu, has admitted that he indeed sent his team to confirm the existence of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council before inviting them to his office at the National Assembly, where he met with Adeniyi Adeyemi, the PFIPC Director-General, and his team.
Kalu, who is not short of controversies, owned up to meeting the controversial DG and his team even though all government agencies have denied that the PFIPC existed.
The Deputy Speaker made the disclosure on Wednesday during plenary while contributing to a motion seeking an investigation into the activities of the alleged council, which has since been disowned by the Presidency.
According to him, he was among several Nigerians deceived by the group’s apparent legitimacy, describing the incident as embarrassing and a reflection of the boldness with which some individuals allegedly impersonate government institutions.
“I rise this morning to support the motion that has been properly moved by my friend and brother from Plateau State. It is quite embarrassing that people have the kind of boldness exhibited, moving around with what is not in existence, carrying themselves as if they are a legal entity,” Kalu said.
He recalled that on May 2, 2025, his office received a letter requesting a meeting to discuss the Constitution Amendment process being undertaken by the 10th House of Representatives, legislative priorities capable of improving investor confidence, and possible areas of collaboration to drive foreign investment.
According to Kalu, the letter appeared official, bearing the Presidency’s logo and listing the Office of the Director-General, the Presidential Economic Advisory Council, and the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council under the same leadership.
“On the 2nd of May, 2025, my office got a letter. That letter had the Presidency on top of the letterhead. It had the Office of the Director General, the Presidential Economic Advisory Council and the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council. Two councils under one DG,” he stated.
The Deputy Speaker said the contents of the correspondence raised both confidence and suspicion, prompting him to order an independent verification of the organisation’s claims before proceeding with the meeting.
“When I saw this, I looked down at the letterhead. I saw the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase 3, 2nd Floor, Central Business District. I also saw the website, pfipc.gov.ng. It was a bit confusing for me. Some of the information looked credible, some did not,” he said.
He explained that members of his staff visited the address provided by the council and reported that the organisation was operating from the location.
“I sent my team to go and verify the existence of this organisation at the said address. They came back confirming that this organisation was in the said location. I then gave approval for them to come and have the interaction they had written for,” Kalu said.
However, he disclosed that the meeting failed to address the issues contained in the letter.
According to him, rather than discussing constitutional amendments or economic governance as proposed, the delegation focused largely on taking photographs.
“They said they wanted to discuss the 10th House of Representatives Constitution Amendment process and its implications for economic governance, legislative priorities that can enhance investor confidence, and areas of collaboration between the National Assembly and the Council to drive foreign investment.
“When they came and started engaging, the issues they mentioned in the letter were not what they engaged on. They did not talk about the Constitution that we were amending. They were more about taking photographs.”
Kalu said the experience highlighted the ease with which individuals could allegedly exploit official symbols, government addresses, and websites to create an impression of legitimacy.
“This goes on to show that a beautiful letterhead that has the Presidency is no longer confirmation that an agency is legal. It goes to show that an address that shows Federal Secretariat does not mean that that particular agency is legal,” he added.
Calling for a thorough probe, the Deputy Speaker urged lawmakers to support the motion before the House, stressing that Parliament had a constitutional responsibility to determine how the alleged council operated without government recognition.
“It is our duty, based on Sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution, to dig deeper into this matter. I urge members to support this motion for the House to show Nigerians that we are in support of transparency and accountability in governance,” he said.
The PFIPC came under national scrutiny after it emerged as one of the beneficiaries in the 2026 Appropriation Act despite repeated denials by the Presidency that the council was ever established by the Federal Government.
The controversy intensified after the National Assembly passed the budget containing allocations to the council, raising questions about how an agency later disowned by the Presidency found its way into the appropriation process.
The Presidency subsequently clarified that President Bola Tinubu neither approved the establishment of the council nor appointed anyone to head it.
Following the development, the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, petitioned security agencies over the alleged impersonation of the Presidency and the use of documents purportedly linked to the agency, leading to investigations by the Nigeria Police Force and other security agencies.
The alleged promoter of the council, Matthew, was later arrested and arraigned on charges bordering on forgery, impersonation, and related offences. He has, however, consistently maintained his innocence, insisting that all documents in his possession were legitimately obtained.
Amid growing public concern over the council’s inclusion in the 2026 budget, President Tinubu directed the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate how the alleged agency was inserted into the Appropriation Act despite not being recognised by the Federal Government.
The President also ordered that all those found culpable be identified and prosecuted in accordance with the law, while directing relevant authorities to unravel the circumstances surrounding the controversial budget allocation.
