The controversy surrounding the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), an agency the Presidency has repeatedly said does not exist, took a fresh turn on Saturday as lawyer and public affairs analyst Frank Tietie called for a full-scale legislative inquiry, alleging that the development points to a disturbing failure of governance and public institutions.
Speaking on Newsnight on ARISE Television, Tietie argued that the issues raised by the controversy transcend the actions of any individual and instead expose what he described as serious institutional lapses that require independent scrutiny.
According to him, if the allegations surrounding the PFIPC are proven, they would amount either to an unprecedented collapse of oversight across key government institutions or to a coordinated scheme that must be thoroughly investigated.
“This is beyond institutional failure at the highest level of governance in our country,” Tietie said. “It is an expression of fundamental official negligence on a simultaneous scale that has never been seen in the history of this country.”
Describing the situation as “a huge systemic disruption,” he said it reflects what he termed misgovernance and widespread institutional negligence.
The controversy erupted after the Presidency publicly disowned the PFIPC following claims reportedly made by Prince Mathew Adeniyi Adeyemi, who identified himself as the council’s Director-General. The Presidency has maintained that the council is not a recognised government agency.
Tietie, however, contended that official denials alone cannot settle the questions raised by the controversy.
“How do you explain all the principal institutions of government at the same time failing to recognise that such a thing is happening?” he asked. “Or could it be the highest form of conspiracy to create a fictitious institution for the purpose of budgetary allocation?”
He said the focus of any investigation should extend beyond individuals to the institutions that may have interacted with the purported agency.
“The indictment is not about one man,” he said, naming the National Assembly, the Presidency, the Budget Office, the Office of the Chief of Staff, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Office of the Head of the Civil Service and security agencies among institutions whose roles should be examined.
Tietie also urged investigators to regard Adeyemi as a potential witness rather than a suspect pending the outcome of a comprehensive probe.
“This man should be given witness protection because the proper investigation has not even started,” he said, warning against making him a scapegoat while broader institutional questions remain unanswered.
Faulting the Federal Government’s response to the controversy, Tietie said official dismissals of the allegations fell short of addressing concerns about the credibility of public institutions.
He urged the National Assembly to invoke its investigative powers under Section 88 of the Constitution to determine how an agency the Presidency says does not exist allegedly operated within official government circles.
According to him, lawmakers should establish whether government institutions failed in their oversight responsibilities or whether deeper administrative irregularities occurred.
He further argued that if the purported agency appeared in any official records, budgetary processes or government correspondence, Nigerians deserve a clear explanation of how that happened.
Maintaining that only an open and independent investigation can restore public confidence, Tietie warned that anything less would deepen public suspicion.
The PFIPC controversy has continued to attract reactions from legal practitioners, civil society organisations and opposition figures, many of whom have called for a comprehensive investigation into the circumstances surrounding the alleged agency and any official dealings linked to it.
While the Presidency has consistently denied the existence of the PFIPC, pressure continues to mount on the National Assembly and other oversight bodies to determine whether any public officials facilitated activities carried out in its name and whether any public funds or government processes were implicated.