The twin controversies surrounding the alleged activities of the so-called Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) and the International Monetary Fund’s criticism of Nigeria’s fiscal reporting have once again thrust issues of transparency, accountability and public financial management into the spotlight. In this piece, NICK DAZANG argues that while the two episodes appear unrelated, they expose the same systemic weaknesses in governance and raise troubling questions about institutional oversight, public trust and the government’s commitment to openness
Nigeria’s media space has been dominated over the past two weeks by two controversies that border on the scandalous and the surreal, both of which have sparked widespread public debate.
The first centres on the alleged activities of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), a purported government agency which, despite reportedly lacking legal backing, operated from office space within the Federal Secretariat.
Headed by a self-styled Director-General, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, the council allegedly received a budgetary allocation of N1.3 billion in the 2026 Appropriation Act and secured approval to recruit 300 staff members.
In a country where opening a corporate bank account involves rigorous scrutiny, including clearance from the Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering (SCUML), the PFIPC reportedly operated multiple bank accounts, including one with the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Even more disturbing was Prince Adeyemi’s claim that he paid a N400 million bribe through intermediaries to the President’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, to secure his appointment as Director-General.
Following a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, dismissing Prince Adeyemi as a “con artist” and distancing the Presidency from him, security agencies reportedly launched a manhunt for the suspect, who has since disappeared.
Reports also indicate that police officers raided his family residence in Ogbomoso, Oyo State, arresting his father and a family friend during the operation.
The ease with which Prince Adeyemi allegedly obtained visas for foreign trips, organised investment summits, convened members of the diplomatic corps and assumed responsibilities legally assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission raises troubling questions. It suggests not only an elaborate scheme but also the possibility that powerful individuals enabled his activities.
Transparency under scrutiny
The second controversy stems from comments by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Resident Representative in Nigeria, Christian Ebeke.
Speaking at a meeting with business executives in Lagos last week, Ebeke disclosed that Nigeria failed to disclose N8.8 trillion in government spending—equivalent to about two per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—in recent budgets.
According to him, the omission understated Nigeria’s fiscal deficit because certain capital expenditures were excluded from official budget documents and implementation reports.
He explained that much of the undisclosed expenditure related to major government projects executed outside the formal budget framework, making it difficult to accurately assess the country’s fiscal position and overall public investment.
Ebeke stressed that greater transparency is essential for strengthening public financial management and warned that off-budget spending raises serious concerns about procurement processes, accountability and institutional oversight.
Although these controversies differ in nature, they converge on one critical issue: transparency—or, more accurately, the glaring absence of it.
Had there been stronger institutional safeguards and officials committed to accountability across the Presidency, the Office of the Chief of Staff, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Office of the Accountant-General, the National Assembly and the Central Bank, Prince Adeyemi’s alleged activities would likely have been detected long before they developed into a national embarrassment.
Recognising the gravity of the allegations, President Tinubu has directed the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to investigate the circumstances surrounding the PFIPC affair.
Echoes of unresolved scandals
While the President’s directive is welcome, many Nigerians are likely to view it with scepticism given the country’s history of lengthy investigations that produce little or no tangible outcome.
The investigation into the former Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Alleviation, Dr Betta Edu, illustrates this concern. Nearly two years after she was suspended over the alleged diversion of N582.2 million, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has yet to conclude its investigation.
Consequently, there are fears that the PFIPC probe could suffer a similar fate.
Equally troubling is the decision to inaugurate the Presidential Working Group on the National Policing Bill on the same day the ICPC investigation was announced, with the committee chaired by Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila, whose name featured in Prince Adeyemi’s allegations.
The reported harassment of Prince Adeyemi’s family members, who may have had no involvement in his alleged activities, also raises concerns about the conduct of the investigation.
Anyone questioning the impartiality of the ICPC or the government’s determination to uncover the full truth may find further reason for concern in the official response to the IMF’s criticism.
The government’s reaction contrasts sharply with its earlier enthusiasm whenever the IMF commended its economic reforms.
On several occasions, the administration openly celebrated the Fund’s praise for what it described as bold reforms and sound economic management.
However, whenever the IMF criticised aspects of government policy or questioned the impact of those reforms on ordinary Nigerians, the response has often been defensive, with officials strongly rejecting or dismissing the organisation’s observations.
Transparency remains non-negotiable
Regardless of the government’s objections, the underlying issues remain.
Nigeria is still implementing aspects of the 2024 budget well into 2026, while incomplete fiscal reporting falls short of internationally accepted accounting and transparency standards.
No incomplete financial report can present an accurate or comprehensive picture of a nation’s finances. Instead, it obscures reality.
Where opacity replaces transparency, speculation inevitably thrives. Questions about financial manipulation or wrongdoing—whether justified or not—become increasingly difficult to dismiss.
These concerns become even more significant against the backdrop of allegations that enormous sums have been used to persuade opposition politicians to defect to the ruling party, even as the country moves closer to another general election.