From Victor Osula Abuja
Accountant General of the Federation, Ogunjimi to appear on Monday
Fresh revelations emerged on Friday in the House of Representatives’ investigation into the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), as the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Tanimu Yakubu, disclosed that although more than ₦1.3 billion was appropriated for the council in the 2026 budget, not a single kobo of public funds was ever released because Nigeria’s financial safeguards prevented the expenditure from taking place.
Yakubu told lawmakers that the Budget Office neither created nor legitimised the council, insisting it merely discharged its statutory responsibility after receiving official establishment documents that investigators now suspect were forged.
The appearance of the Budget Office chief before the House Ad-Hoc Committee marked another critical stage in the widening investigation into the alleged unlawful establishment and funding of the PFIPC, a scandal that has already drawn in several government institutions and prompted scrutiny of how the council secured official recognition and budgetary provisions despite growing questions over its legal status.
The probe follows earlier moves by the Presidency to distance itself from the council, while lawmakers seek to establish whether public officials were complicit in processing documents now alleged to have been forged to facilitate the council’s operations.
Yakubu maintained that the Budget Office neither established the council nor approved its existence, recruitment, salaries or budget code. According to him, the office simply performed its constitutional responsibility by evaluating the financial implications of approvals and establishment authorisations received from other statutory government institutions.
“The Budget Office did not create the council. It did not assign its budget code. It did not approve its establishment. It did not grant its recruitment waiver. It received official instruments and did what the law required of it. It measured their fiscal effect”, he told the committee.
Yakubu disclosed that while the PFIPC requested ₦3.8 billion as personnel costs, the Budget Office rejected the proposal after conducting an independent assessment.
Using the approved establishment and salary structure prescribed by the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission, the agency recalculated the requirement and arrived at ₦802,978,783.
“That estimate did not form the basis of the Budget Office’s recommendation. The Budget Office rejected it and made an independent calculation. That calculation produced ₦802,978,783. This was not a concession to the council. It was the Budget Office’s own fiscal proposal”, he explained.
Yakubu stressed that despite the appropriation, the Budget Office deliberately withheld the mandatory financial clearance required before any federal agency could commence recruitment, enrol workers on the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS), or begin salary payments.
“There was therefore no financial clearance. There was no lawful recruitment. There was no payroll enrolment. There was no salary payment”, he said.
He explained that although personnel costs accounted for about 61.63 per cent of the council’s appropriation, no funds were ever accessed.
“Not one naira of the personnel provision has been drawn. There is no personnel expenditure to recover because no expenditure ever occurred”, Yakubu added.
The Budget Office boss also disclosed that the council’s ₦200 million overhead allocation remained untouched because treasury warrants and cash backing were never issued.
Similarly, the ₦300 million capital allocation did not progress beyond the appropriation stage because none of the statutory procurement requirements prescribed by law was fulfilled.
He said no Ministerial Tenders Board approved any contract, no Certificate of No Objection was issued by the Bureau of Public Procurement, and neither treasury warrants nor cash backing were granted.
“No procurement reached the point at which expenditure would arise. No Ministerial Tenders Board approved a transaction. No Certificate of No Objection was issued. No treasury warrant followed. No treasury cash-backing followed”, he stated.
According to Yakubu, the episode demonstrated that Nigeria’s public financial management framework worked exactly as intended.
“The law did not recover money after it had gone. It prevented the expenditure before it began”, he said.
The hearing took a dramatic turn when committee members questioned the legal basis upon which the PFIPC secured budgetary provisions after examining what was presented as the Act establishing the council.
Committee member Rep. Abubakar Fulata argued that the document lacked the essential features of a valid Act of Parliament, including a gazette number, the signature of the Clerk to the National Assembly and evidence of presidential assent.
“The purported Act is very clear. It is not genuine because it did not carry the gazette number, it did not have the signature of the Clerk of the National Assembly, and it did not carry the signature of Mr President”, Fulata said.
He criticised government agencies for failing to verify the authenticity of the document before relying on it for official decisions that eventually culminated in budgetary allocations.
Responding, Yakubu insisted that the Budget Office never relied on the purported Act in determining personnel costs. Instead, he said the office based its calculations strictly on establishment authorisations, recruitment approvals and salary directives issued by the relevant statutory authorities.
“We do not rely on any instrument to calculate personnel costs other than the establishment authorisation and the directives of the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission”, he said.
Chairman of the committee, Rep. Yusuf Gagdi, defended the Budget Office’s conduct, saying the evidence before lawmakers indicated that the agency complied with all procedural requirements before making budgetary provisions for the council.
According to him, the committee had already established that the documents relied upon by various government agencies were later discovered to be suspected forgeries.
“The question is whether the Budget Office allocated a budget to this agency without the agency satisfying the requirements. The answer, based on the documents before us, is no. I repeat, no”, Gagdi said.
He noted that the investigation had now shifted from examining the Budget Office’s actions to uncovering how the alleged forged documents found their way into official government records.
“The agency satisfied all the requirements the Budget Office needed before allocating a budget. The issue now is whether those documents were genuine. That is what this committee is investigating”, he stated.
Gagdi announced that the Accountant-General of the Federation would appear before the committee on Monday to explain how the PFIPC obtained its budget code, while officials of other agencies involved in the processing of the council’s documents would also testify.
He expressed confidence that the committee would conclude its work next week.
“By the special grace of God, we will conclude our findings and finish by next week”, the chairman said.
