PFIPC: Foreign Affairs Ministry Rejected Three Requests by Adeyemi to Host Investment Summit

The House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the alleged establishment and operation of the disputed Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) without legal backing has summoned the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the National Security Adviser (NSA) to explain how the purported council allegedly conducted activities despite concerns over its legitimacy.

The summons followed a submission by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dunoma Umar Ahmed, who told the committee on Tuesday that the ministry had no official relationship with the council and had rejected three requests linked to Adeniyi Adeyemi, who presented himself as its director-general.

Appearing before the committee with a letter dated July 21, 2026, the permanent secretary disclosed that Adeyemi had approached the ministry on three occasions seeking its collaboration and endorsement to organise a World Investment Summit in Nigeria.

According to the ministry, the requests were received on June 26, 2025, August 5, 2025 and June 5, 2026, but none was approved or acted upon.

The ministry said its decision was based on the need to conduct due diligence and comply with established rules and regulations before endorsing the proposed summit.

“Guided by extant rules and regulations as well as the necessity of carrying out due diligence before obliging any request, the Ministry… did not take any action on the requests,” the letter stated.

It added that the ministry's refusal was also influenced by discrepancies identified in correspondence submitted by Adeyemi, as well as the ongoing investigation into the legitimacy of the PFIPC and the identity and status of its purported director-general.

The ministry further disclosed that it wrote to the Office of the National Security Adviser on October 16, 2025, seeking clarification on Adeyemi's status and the legitimacy of the organisation he claimed to represent.

According to the ministry, the NSA responded on November 26, 2025, stating that inquiries made with the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President showed that Adeyemi was unknown to the Federal Government.

The ministry quoted the response as saying: “Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Mathew is unknown to any office of the Federal Government.”

The Foreign Affairs Ministry also told the lawmakers that it had never officially interacted with the PFIPC or Adeyemi in his purported capacity as director-general.

It stated that it “did not participate in any diplomatic engagement or bilateral and multilateral discussions held by the PFIPC” and had “never had any official interaction or engagement with the PFIPC or its alleged Director-General.”

The revelation prompted questions from lawmakers, with committee member Abubakar Hassan Fulata asking why stronger steps were not taken after the ministry received confirmation that the purported council lacked official recognition.

Fulata questioned whether the ministry had formally informed Adeyemi that the organisation he represented was illegal and warned him against further interactions with government institutions.

The committee chairman, however, said the ministry had acted appropriately by referring the matter to the NSA but insisted that the security office must now explain what action it took after being informed of the suspected irregularities.

“The Office of the National Security Adviser should appear before this committee and explain that aspect,” the chairman said.

He added that the NSA's response that the purported agency was illegal raised questions about subsequent action by the security authorities.

“Foreign Affairs received correspondences from this agency under investigation. They noticed discrepancies and requested the Office of the NSA to find out the status of the agency. The NSA responded that it is an illegal agency. What has the Office of the NSA done as a security office after discovering that the agency does not exist?” he asked.

The lawmakers also expressed concern over reports that the purported council had organised events involving foreign diplomatic missions despite the Foreign Affairs Ministry's position that it had no dealings with the organisation.

One lawmaker recalled reports that the council had organised a summit attended by representatives of more than 30 embassies.

The committee chairman said the development exposed serious gaps in coordination between government institutions, particularly in matters involving foreign diplomats and international engagements.

He questioned how an organisation allegedly lacking legal recognition could obtain documents, engage government agencies and conduct diplomatic activities involving foreign nationals.

“Our responsibility is to make laws. Then a strange agency that is supposed to do our function is introduced to us. We notice discrepancies, report to the NSA, and the NSA responds that the agency is illegal, then all of a sudden we see the agency engaging foreign nationals in diplomatic functions that need to be coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” he said.

Describing the situation as unacceptable, the chairman said the case raised broader concerns about the ability of individuals to create purported government agencies, secure official-looking documentation and engage foreign missions without proper authorisation.

Responding to the lawmakers, the permanent secretary acknowledged that some organisations occasionally bypass established diplomatic channels when dealing with foreign missions.

He said the Foreign Affairs Ministry regularly issues circulars reminding such organisations of the need to follow approved channels of communication.

The committee chairman commended the ministry for providing information that could assist the investigation but stressed that the probe was not yet concluded.

“You have done well by giving us the fundamentals of what you understand and the effort the ministry has made. We cannot say that you have not given us information that will help us,” he said.

He, however, confirmed that the Minister of Foreign Affairs would be required to appear before the committee on Thursday.

The committee secretariat was also directed to invite the National Security Adviser to appear and answer questions arising from the ministry's testimony, particularly regarding the NSA's response that Adeyemi was unknown to the Federal Government and the purported PFIPC lacked legal recognition.

The latest development adds to a growing series of revelations from government institutions investigating the disputed PFIPC, with previous testimonies raising questions about its alleged budget allocation, bank accounts, staffing, office space and purported official engagements.

The House committee is expected to continue examining how the organisation allegedly operated within or around government structures despite conflicting claims over its legal status and whether any public officials or institutions facilitated its activities.