Adeniyi Adeyemi, who describes himself as the Director General of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, has denied claims that he created the disputed agency on his own, insisting that several federal institutions were actively involved in its operations.
Adeyemi, who is currently being held by the police, made the claims through a statement issued by his legal team. The statement was signed by his counsel, Festus Akhigbe.
His lawyers also appealed to the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the council to allow Adeyemi to appear before lawmakers and personally explain his role in the matter.
The committee, led by Yusuf Gagdi, is examining the circumstances surrounding the establishment and activities of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council. According to the defence team, any report produced without hearing directly from their client would be incomplete and would violate his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
The lawyers said they had formally requested the necessary approval for Adeyemi to testify before the committee, arguing that denying him the opportunity would undermine the credibility of the investigation.
Rejecting claims that Adeyemi acted alone, the legal team maintained that it was unfair to portray him as the sole architect of an organisation that allegedly interacted with several government institutions over a considerable period.
According to the statement, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation received documents relating to the council and facilitated the allocation of office space within the Federal Secretariat.
The defence further alleged that the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation and the Central Bank of Nigeria acted on official documents connected to the council by issuing administrative budget codes, approving self accounting status, assigning federal civil servants and opening operational accounts.
The lawyers also claimed that the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation approved the council’s organisational structure and granted recruitment waivers that enabled the engagement of 314 personnel.
They added that senior officials from security agencies attended programmes organised by the council, while the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission allegedly allocated a property to the organisation, requested a processing fee and later presented a recognition plaque to its leadership.
Adeyemi’s legal team argued that the reported involvement of several ministries, departments and agencies raises important questions about how responsibility for the council’s activities should be determined.
The statement questioned how one individual could allegedly deceive multiple government institutions if official documents were processed, recognised and acted upon by those agencies over an extended period. The lawyers insisted that such a situation would have been impossible without institutional involvement at different levels.
They further argued that the controversy should not be viewed solely through the actions of one individual but should instead examine the procedures, approvals and administrative processes that allegedly allowed the council to function.
The defence also alleged that Adeyemi was being unfairly singled out to shield wider administrative failures within government institutions. They urged investigators to broaden the scope of the probe to include every ministry, department and agency that allegedly processed documents, allocated resources or officially engaged with the council.
The legal team concluded by calling for a more transparent and independent investigation involving civil society groups, legal professionals and other neutral observers, saying only a comprehensive review of the entire paper trail would reveal how the council operated and who should ultimately be held accountable.
