ADC Rejects ICPC’s PFIPC Report, Demands Answers on ₦1.3bn Budget Allocation

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has rejected the interim report of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) on the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), arguing that the findings leave some of the biggest questions surrounding the scandal unanswered.

The opposition party said the report appeared to focus more on limiting political fallout than establishing how a purported government agency allegedly gained access to official institutions, occupied government office space and received other forms of state recognition despite questions over its legal status.

The ADC’s position was contained in a statement issued on Saturday by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi.

The controversy surrounding the PFIPC has intensified in recent weeks following allegations that the organisation operated as a government agency despite questions over its establishment, with its purported Director-General, Adeniyi Adeyemi, facing scrutiny from law enforcement agencies and lawmakers.

The party said the ICPC’s interim findings had failed to provide satisfactory explanations for how the organisation allegedly secured office accommodation within the Federal Secretariat, attracted civil servants, obtained official recognition and appeared in the 2026 federal budget with a reported allocation of ₦1.3 billion.

The ADC recalled that it had previously opposed President Bola Tinubu’s decision to assign the investigation to the ICPC, insisting that an independent panel would have been better positioned to investigate the matter without questions about institutional proximity.

According to the opposition party, the interim nature of the ICPC report made it even more difficult to understand why the commission appeared to be pointing responsibility towards Adeyemi while simultaneously maintaining that its investigation was still ongoing.

“The report is not only predictable, it appears more concerned with exonerating government officials rather than providing clear answers to the serious questions that the scandal has raised,” the party said.

The ADC argued that the controversy could not simply be dismissed as an administrative failure.

It maintained that if the PFIPC was indeed established through fraudulent representations, there were still important questions about how those representations allegedly passed through several layers of government without being detected.

“A forgery may explain the first door that was opened. It cannot explain why every subsequent door appears to have opened as well,” the party said.

‘Who Approved The Office, Staff And Official Support?’
For the ADC, the central issue is not simply whether Adeyemi allegedly forged documents or misrepresented himself.

The party wants investigators to establish how an organisation whose legitimacy is now being questioned could allegedly secure office accommodation, civil servants, official vehicles and other institutional support.

It argued that such developments would ordinarily require interaction with multiple government departments and officials.

The party therefore questioned whether the alleged activities were facilitated by negligence, institutional failure or possible complicity within government.

The ADC also raised concerns over reports that the ICPC had identified two other allegedly fictitious organisations linked to Adeyemi.

Rather than viewing that development as evidence of an isolated individual operation, the party said it should prompt investigators to widen the scope of their inquiry.

One of the most significant issues raised by the opposition party was the reported ₦1.3 billion allocation to the PFIPC in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

The ADC argued that a provision of that magnitude should have generated a clear paper trail involving budget submissions, reviews, approvals and verification.

“Budgetary provisions do not materialise by accident,” the party said.

It consequently demanded to know who proposed the allocation, which government officials processed it and who verified the existence and legitimacy of the purported agency before the provision was included in the federal budget.

The party noted that the House of Representatives had already begun its own investigation into how the PFIPC allegedly found its way into the federal budget.

According to the ADC, the legislative inquiry could provide an opportunity to establish whether the budget allocation resulted from deliberate manipulation, administrative negligence or failures within the government’s budgetary verification system.

The opposition party also criticised the reported recommendation that Adeyemi be prosecuted.

It argued that the ICPC’s decision to single out the purported PFIPC director-general appeared premature if, as the commission itself indicated, its investigation remained ongoing.

“If all that the commission had to present was a preliminary report, why not simply present it as a confidential brief to the President instead of making a public drama of it?” the ADC asked.

The party said the investigation should not be structured around finding a convenient individual to blame but should instead establish everyone who may have played a role in allowing the alleged operation to continue.

‘Nigerians Deserve The Full Story’
The ADC described the controversy as a national embarrassment and called on the ICPC to release the full interim report rather than only selected findings.

It also demanded that any public officials whose actions or negligence enabled the purported agency to operate be identified and investigated.

The party stressed that anyone found culpable should face appropriate sanctions after due process.

“What has happened is a national disgrace in the full glare of the entire world. No serious government should be satisfied with identifying one culprit for prosecution,” the party said.

The ADC maintained that Nigerians were not asking investigators to manufacture suspects or reach predetermined conclusions.

Rather, it said, the investigation should follow the evidence wherever it leads — including into government offices if necessary.

At the heart of the controversy, according to the opposition party, is a simple question: if the PFIPC was not a legitimate government agency, how did it allegedly get so far inside the machinery of government without multiple officials noticing?

That, the ADC argued, is the question the ongoing investigations must ultimately answer.