PFIPC Probe: We’ll Invite Gbajabiamila If Evidence Warrants It—Reps

The House of Representatives committee investigating the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council has said former Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, Femi Gbajabiamila, could be invited if evidence from the ongoing investigation shows that his appearance is necessary.

The chairman of the ad hoc committee, Yusuf Gagdi, disclosed this during an interview on Channels Television’s Politics Today, while explaining the scope and progress of the investigation.

Gagdi said the committee’s mandate was not focused on specific individuals but on determining how the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council became part of the Federal Government’s administrative and budgetary structure despite questions surrounding its legal foundation.

He explained that the committee would not summon people simply because their names appeared in documents under investigation. Instead, individuals would be invited when evidence gathered by the committee showed that their involvement required further clarification.

Gagdi said the same approach applied to Gbajabiamila. He noted that if evidence established a reason for the former Chief of Staff to appear before the committee, he would be invited like any other person relevant to the investigation.

The committee chairman also explained why its members met Prince Adeniyi at a police facility rather than bringing him before a public hearing. According to him, the police had informed the committee that Adeniyi was being held based on a court order.

Gagdi said the committee chose to respect the court process and avoid taking any action that could interfere with the authority of the judiciary. Members therefore visited the police facility and questioned Adeniyi privately.

He declined to reveal details of the meeting, citing the ongoing criminal investigations and court proceedings involving Adeniyi. He said releasing the substance of the testimony could affect investigations being conducted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission and the police.

Gagdi described the committee’s recently released findings as preliminary, saying they were presented to inform Nigerians that the investigation had reached a certain stage. He stressed that the final report would only be submitted to the House after the investigation had been completed.

The lawmaker also rejected claims that the committee had failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not questioning every person whose name appeared in the matter. He said the committee had engaged relevant individuals and institutions while concentrating on its central responsibility of determining the origin and legal status of the disputed agency.

According to him, the committee obtained documents and information from several government institutions, including the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Office of the National Security Adviser, Department of State Services, EFCC, ICPC and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

It also invited members of the public to submit memoranda as part of the investigation. Gagdi said three petitions were received, but none was directed against former Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Betta Edu.

He explained that the committee’s decision to meet Adeniyi was connected to a petition alleging that he collected N400 million from a contractor. The petitioner reportedly alleged that Adeniyi invited him to Abuja from Ibadan and showed him a residence in connection with an alleged N2 billion contract opportunity.

The committee was also said to have examined evidence of four payments allegedly made to Adeniyi, as well as claims involving the use of an official vehicle and number plate.

On Gbajabiamila, Gagdi said the committee examined documents that purportedly connected the former Chief of Staff to the disputed agency. He said members compared the signatures on the documents with other official documents attributed to Gbajabiamila and found differences.

The committee also examined alleged resolutions, executive orders and an Act said to have established the agency. Gagdi said some of the documents under review appeared to have been fabricated, including documents purportedly linked to the Presidency and the National Assembly.

He said the committee was also trying to determine whether some correspondence attributed to the Office of the Chief of Staff genuinely originated from the State House. Officials who appeared before the committee were reportedly unable to authenticate some of the disputed documents.

Gagdi maintained that the committee would not rule out inviting Gbajabiamila if further evidence made his appearance necessary. He said the fact that the former Chief of Staff’s name appeared on a document was, by itself, not enough reason to summon him.

The lawmaker further clarified that the preliminary findings released by the committee should not be regarded as the final position of the House of Representatives. He said the investigation remained ongoing and that the substantive report would eventually be presented to the House for consideration.