The Tinubu administration is facing fresh questions over a presidential body the Presidency says does not exist, but which reportedly appeared in the 2026 federal budget with a ₦1.3bn allocation. The controversy has now moved beyond one man accused of impersonation and become a test of how authority is verified inside government.
At the centre of the matter is Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, who the Presidency accused of parading himself as Director-General of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, also linked in reports to the Presidential Economic Advisory Council.
The Presidency said investigators found that the body was fictitious and alleged that Adeyemi used forged appointment documents. It also said police had filed charges against him before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Adeyemi has denied wrongdoing. He insists his appointment was genuine and has challenged the government to explain how the body allegedly appeared in the 2026 Appropriation Act if it did not exist.
Read related news:
Presidency details probe that exposed fake presidential agency
Tinubu says road projects are revitalising economy, reducing congestion
Tinubu signs NIMC Act: Seven things Nigerians must know
Presidency warns against ‘weaponising religion’ with deepfake videos ahead of political season
That question is now driving public concern.
Reports by TheCable said the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council was listed under the Presidency in the 2026 budget with an allocation of about ₦1.3bn.
The reported breakdown included ₦802,978,783 for personnel costs, ₦200,000,001 for overheads and ₦300,000,000 for capital projects.
If those entries are accurate, they raise a direct question: who inserted the name, who reviewed it, who defended it and who approved it?
A federal budget does not write itself. It passes through executive preparation, the Budget Office, presidential submission, National Assembly scrutiny, committee review and final approval.
If a body without legal existence entered that chain, the issue is not only alleged forgery. It is a failure of institutional checks.
The details are serious because personnel cost suggests staff. Overhead suggests running expenses. Capital expenditure suggests projects. These are not casual words; they are spending categories in public finance.
The matter widened after Premium Times reported that three civil servants from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation were deployed to the now-disowned agency.
The newspaper named them as Ojo Victor, Omeh Amarachukwu and Wakili Saidu. It said their statements form part of the police case against Adeyemi.
According to the report, Adeyemi had written to the Accountant-General on PFIPC letter-headed paper requesting the deployment of accounting and audit officers. At least three civil servants were later reportedly posted on August 28, 2025, based on a posting letter published on the OAGF website.
That raises another hard question: how did a supposedly fictitious agency become visible enough to receive official staff postings?
There are also questions over access.
TheCable reported that Adeyemi had public engagements with senior officials, including Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives Benjamin Kalu in July 2025 and EFCC chairman Ola Olukoyede in September 2025. It also reported that he appeared in photographs linked to meetings with diplomats and other official engagements.
None of this proves that the agency was legitimate. It also does not prove that every official who met Adeyemi knew the full background. Public officials receive many visitors.
But it does raise a basic governance question: what verification is carried out before someone is received as the head of a body carrying the word “Presidential” in its name?
If PFIPC was fake, then a fake body allegedly moved through real doors.
That is the point Nigerians should not miss.
Adeyemi is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the charges against him must be tested in court. The Presidency’s denial may also be correct.
But the public interest does not end with prosecuting one man.
The deeper issue is whether people inside government enabled him, failed to check him, or ignored warning signs because the system was weak.
The offices that now need to provide answers include the Office of the Chief of Staff, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Head of the Civil Service, the Budget Office, the Office of the Accountant-General, relevant National Assembly committees and any agency that allegedly engaged with PFIPC in an official capacity.
The Central Bank of Nigeria should also clarify whether any account existed in the name of PFIPC, PEAC or any related title. If no such account existed, it should say so clearly. If an account existed, Nigerians deserve to know who authorised it and on what legal basis.
The National Assembly also has questions to answer. If the body appeared in the Appropriation Act, lawmakers should explain how it passed scrutiny. Budget defence is not meant to be ceremonial. It is supposed to test whether an institution exists, what it does and why it needs public funds.
This scandal exposes a familiar Nigerian problem: the system often reacts only after embarrassment becomes public.
PFIPC reportedly had social media activity, photographs, engagements and claims of official access. If all of that happened before the public disclaimer, then government monitoring failed.
The Tinubu administration cannot treat this as a small impersonation case and move on. It should publish a clear timeline, name the offices that handled documents linked to PFIPC, disclose whether any money was released, and identify any officials who failed in their duty.
The best response would be an independent administrative inquiry alongside the criminal trial. The court can decide whether Adeyemi forged documents or impersonated an official. But only a wider inquiry can tell Nigerians how the alleged ghost agency got this far.
The central question is clear: a government that says a body is fictitious must explain how the “fiction” allegedly entered real budget documents, real offices and official engagements.
The real story is not only Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew. The real story is the system that may have allowed a ghost agency to walk through the front door of government.
